Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cost of Living

Carolyn Harris: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Wales.

Wayne David: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Wales.

David Davies: The UK Government fully recognise the challenges posed by cost of living pressures that have come about as a result of the covid pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine. That is why they are providing £104 billion over 2022 to 2025 to support households and individuals across the UK—an average of £3,700 per household.

Carolyn Harris: On Monday evening, ITV News featured a Bevan Foundation study on pensioner poverty in Wales. With nearly a quarter of Wales’s population being over 65, more pensioners are experiencing poverty in Wales than anywhere else in the UK. The “make do and mend” generation, who experienced imposed rationing as children, are now self-denying, with one in 10 pensioners skipping meals and one in five going without heating at some point this winter. What do the UK Government intend to do about this dire situation?

David Davies: The UK Government fully recognise the importance of supporting pensioners. That is why we have committed to the triple lock and made sure that, even through the difficult crises we have faced over the past few years, pensions have risen in line with inflation. On top of that, there has been an extra payment of £300 for pensioners, and the UK Government’s policy of bringing down inflation is going to help everyone in Wales and the UK, including all pensioners. I hope the hon. Lady will agree that that is a much better focus than, for example, bringing in road user charging, which is going to hit pensioners who want to drive cars in Wales.

Wayne David: Citizens Advice Cymru has stated that during 2023, it referred over 21,000 people to food banks in Wales, almost double the number for 2021. What does that say about the impact of the Government’s policies on ordinary people in Wales?

David Davies: As I have just outlined, the UK Government are absolutely focused on supporting those with the least in Wales and across the United Kingdom. That is why the UK Government’s policy of bringing down inflation to around half has helped everyone, and it is why the UK Government have made sure that benefits have risen in line with inflation. Households where there are benefits have received a £900 payment, and households where there is disability have received a £150 payment. I do not for one moment doubt the fact that many people are facing serious difficulties at the moment, but this Government are committed to helping them. When I visit food banks, I am told that all sorts of people have to go and visit food banks on a temporary basis—they should not be used to score cheap political points.

Sarah Atherton: Welsh Labour’s reduction of business rates relief from 75% to 40% is already having an impact, with small businesses in Wrexham saying that they are going to fold. Despite the UK Government maintaining the rate at 75%, the Welsh Government are focusing more on wasting £140 million on a 20 mph scheme and increasing the number of Senedd politicians. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Labour Government should focus on what the people of Wales need, not what socialist Senedd politicians want to dictate?

David Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is disgraceful that pubs in Wales are going to be paying, on average, thousands of pounds more in business rates because the Welsh Senedd Government have not passed on the money that has been given to them by the UK Government, and it is disgraceful that small tourism businesses are facing a tourism tax levy. If the Welsh Government want to focus on the priorities of small businesses and communities in Wales, they should indeed scrap the plan to spend £140 million on extra Senedd Members.

Virginia Crosbie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in whichthe Welsh Labour Government can help with the cost of living is by helping businesses create jobs and supporting employers, such as the iconic Lobster Pot on Anglesey, rather than increasing business rates punitively and increasing the number of Senedd Members by a staggering 60%?

David Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is a huge champion of businesses in her constituency, and it is a shame that the Senedd does not look to her example of championing businesses instead of imposing all sorts of extra taxes, while—as she mentioned—wasting money on schemes such as creating extra Senedd Members and bringing in road charging on the M4. Even my own Labour council is suggesting bringing back Severn bridge tolls.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Jessica Morden: Some 8,000 homeowners in Wales face the Tory mortgage bombshell this month, with households projected to pay an extra £240 per month as their fixed-rate deals come to an end. Despite the Conservative party’s opposition, the Welsh Government have put in place measures to prevent   repossessions, and a UK Labour Government would require banks to protect homeowners. What is the Secretary of State doing to help homeowners facing massive bills caused by the Conservative party’s economic mismanagement?

David Davies: The UK Government have put in place a number of measures to support any mortgage holders facing difficulties at the moment, but the most important measure has been to bring down inflation. Inflation actually peaked at a higher rate in Europe than in the United Kingdom. Inflation is now down at 4%—much less than half of what it was previously—which will have a beneficial impact on mortgage interest rates over the longer term. I ask the hon. Lady whether, in all fairness, she thinks that her party’s plans to borrow £28 billion a year, which is going to increase inflation and have a very bad impact on mortgage interest rates, will be good or bad for homeowners?

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. The Government’s own estimates warn that new Brexit border checks will increase the cost of fresh imports by £330 million and worsen food inflation. The Secretary of State used to dismiss warnings of Brexit border controls as scare stories. Will he now admit how wrong he was, and recognise that the best way to reduce food inflation, which sits at an eye-watering 8%, would be to rejoin the single market?

David Davies: I make no apologies for rubbishing the scare stories that came out before Brexit took place. We were told that it was going to lead to the collapse of the economy, to the collapse of house prices, to the end of fresh fruit and veg being sold in shops, and even to no more Magnum ice creams. I think we were even going to run out of Viagra as well at one point. The reality is that none of those scare stories has happened, but it is a bit ironic that the right hon. Lady, the leader of the Plaid Cymru group, is demanding that we rejoin the European Union while at the same time wanting to take Wales out of one of the most successful financial unions—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Secretary of State, I am this way, not that way, and you are getting a little carried away. There are a few more questions, and Liz Saville Roberts has another one for you.

Liz Saville-Roberts: That is a Brexit fantasy, and now we look at the wonder of the UK. Northern Ireland is set to receive over £3 billion and a fairer funding settlement from the Treasury, which I welcome. That includes millions of pounds to help balance budgets. Meanwhile in Wales, councillors face a budget black hole of £646 million, which is set to decimate our social services over the next three years. These cuts will be devastating for people left without resources during the cost of living crisis. As Wales’s man in the Cabinet, what has the Secretary of State done to demand equivalent fair funding for Wales?

David Davies: First, I must point out to the right hon. Lady that, since leaving the European Union, our growth rate has been better than that of Germany, and our manufacturing has now exceeded that of France. As far as fair funding for Wales is concerned, we receive  20% more per head to spend on devolved services than is spent in England. One thing the right hon. Lady and I might agree on is that it is high time the Welsh Labour Government explained why we have longer waiting lists and lower educational standards, despite having more money to spend on devolved services.

Energy Mix

Stephen Doughty: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of the energy mix in Wales.

Anna McMorrin: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of the energy mix in Wales.

Fay Jones: That was lively, Mr Speaker.
The UK has a secure and diverse energy system, and Wales continues to play a key role. The UK Government are going further to ensure our energy security by supporting our oil and gas industry, and investing to scale up our renewable energy production, such as floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea.

Stephen Doughty: Many of my constituents make the long journey round to work at Hinkley, yet we have had this Government in power for 14 years and we have seen no new nuclear delivered in Wales, despite our proud history of generation, with its significant opportunities to lower energy bills, deliver high-quality jobs and reduce carbon emissions. Where on earth is their plan, and why are they not getting on with delivering it?

Fay Jones: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman mentioning nuclear. I seem to recall that, when his party was in power, Labour did next to nothing to advance the cause of nuclear energy in this country. It gives me ample opportunity to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who has committed the Government to everything we have done on Wylfa so far. Progress is being made, in stark contrast to the record of his party.

Anna McMorrin: We have had 14 years of successive Tory Governments, who have all had the chance to invest in the transition to net zero. Instead, they have chosen to backslide on climate commitments, and it is working people across my constituency of Cardiff North who are paying the price. With this Government intent on issuing new oil and gas licences, what does the Minister say to families in my constituency who are now paying treble for their energy bills?

Fay Jones: I would point out that it is this Government who stepped in with £96 billion of support to mitigate the impact of those energy bills. I completely disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of our record on net zero, and I would point out that, when her party was in power, 7% of our energy supply came from renewable sources.

Anna McMorrin: Fourteen years!

Fay Jones: If the hon. Lady will let me finish the point, the figure is now just under 50%, and that is the record of this party’s 14 years in power.

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend mentions the new industry of floating offshore wind, which has huge potential to create a large number of high-quality jobs in places such as Milford Haven and Port Talbot. The two ports both have bids in with the UK Government to the FLOWMIS port infrastructure scheme, which will be key to seeing this vision realised. When can the ports expect to hear back about those bids?

Fay Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for that question. I am delighted that today the Crown Estate is hosting a bidders day to drive forward plans for innovative floating wind projects in the Celtic sea. The UK Government are supporting FLOW through our contracts for difference scheme, securing a long-term pipeline of projects in the Celtic sea. I would be happy to write to him with a further update on when more progress can be discussed.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jo Stevens: On the issue of the energy mix, the Tata workers I met last week know that the virgin steel they make is vital to supporting our renewable energy aspirations, such as offshore wind in the Celtic sea, so the loss of 3,000 jobs is a kick in the teeth for our proud and skilled Welsh steelworkers. It will devastate local economies and the sovereign steelmaking capacity that would build the wind turbines we need, yet the Business Secretary told us at the weekend:
“It’s not about the job losses”.
Does the Secretary of State agree with her comments?

Fay Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has me replying to that question, not the Secretary of State.
It is important to recognise that the investment from this UK Government has saved thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom. Of course, the transition board is now working with the individuals affected in Port Talbot, which is the proper and right thing to do. I am glad that both the UK and Welsh Governments are working towards that; it is absolutely the right outcome. We need to think about these things in the wider context, which is our responsibility.

Jo Stevens: The Minister boasts about the transition board, but that only exists because of the Government’s failure to protect jobs and vital industries. Each year, Port Talbot provides enough virgin steel to deliver the UK’s 2030 wind targets by itself. Can she tell the House where that steel will come from when her Government’s intervention shuts the blast furnaces early? Will it come from India? If so, we will be surrendering our ability to create jobs, investment and cheaper bills here in Britain.

Fay Jones: Mr Speaker, it will not surprise you to learn that I completely disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment. I would point out that this Government have provided the transition board with £80 million. We have not seen any of the £20 million that the Welsh Labour Government have promised, but indications so far are that moving away from steelmaking would not have a direct impact on national security.[Official Report, 6 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 4MC.] (Correction)

Speed Limit: Residential Roads

James Davies: Whether he has had discussions with the Welsh Government on the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit on residential roads and pedestrian streets in Wales.

Scott Benton: Whether he has had discussions with the Welsh Government on the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit on residential roads and pedestrian streets in Wales.

David Davies: The Welsh Government’s policy on the blanket 20 mph speed limit is damaging communities and businesses across Wales. All of us support 20 mph limits if there is a safety reason outside schools, hospitals or old people’s homes, but the blanket 20 mph limit is, by the Welsh Government’s own figures, going to create a £4.5 billion hit to the Welsh economy.

James Davies: In my constituency, bus services no longer serve Dyserth’s high street or the Tweedmill shopping outlet in Trefnant, which impacts on some of the most vulnerable people. Arriva has stated that the Welsh Government’s 20 mph policy is a key reason for that. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government have failed in multiple ways to properly consider the impact of their policy and that they should repeal it in full?

David Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Not only have the Welsh Government not considered the impact of this policy on the economy, businesses and commuters, but they have failed to consider the impact on users of public transport. We are seeing bus timetables across the whole of Wales being ripped up because of this daft policy. The Welsh Labour Government seem determined to apply a handbrake to the Welsh economy.

Scott Benton: Blanket 20 mph zones do not command widespread public support and, as a consequence, are widely ignored and unenforceable. Furthermore, there is very little evidence that they improve road safety or air quality. The roll-out of the scheme in Wales has proved to be an utter farce. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Labour party has not learned its lesson and would no doubt seek to impose this costly and disastrous policy in England were it to be elected?

David Davies: My hon. Friend is correct. Not only have the Welsh Labour Government not considered this policy, but they have ignored the fact that 468,000 people have signed a petition calling on them to reconsider—the largest petition in the history of the Senedd. He is also correct to say that if a Labour Government were ever elected in this country—I certainly hope that will not happen—it is inevitable that they would pursue anti-motorist policies such as the 20 mph speed limit, a ban on new roads being built, and congestion charges and emission zones being set up all over the place.

Hywel Williams: The South Wales Argus of 28 December 2022 informs us that the Secretary of State for Wales outlined his “anger” that the 20 mph speed limit in Caerwent was not being enforced properly by the police. Is he still angry?

David Davies: I began my response earlier by saying that all of us in this House support 20 mph speed limits where there is an issue of safety, and I could not be more clear about that. What I do not support is a blanket 20 mph limit. Alongside that blanket 20 mph limit on 30 mph roads, the Welsh Labour Government are using underhand methods to bring down the speed limits on perfectly safe dual carriageways from 70 mph to 50 mph. That is what lies in store if Labour is ever elected to government in the rest of the country.

Jim Shannon: Clearly the 20 mph speed limit that is being enforced in Wales will restrict people in their movement. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Welsh Assembly on providing more buses to take people out of their cars, and will there be more provision for cyclists? If there is not that provision, this system cannot work.

David Davies: Unfortunately, Welsh Senedd Ministers do not seem interested in reconsidering the policy. Frankly, there is an anti-motorist agenda with the Welsh Labour Government, which has seen blanket 20 mph speed limits, speed reductions on dual carriageways, congestion charges being considered and charging to use the M4. Most shockingly of all, my own Labour council is considering bringing back Severn bridge tolls.

Rail Infrastructure

Karin Smyth: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of rail infrastructure in Wales.

Fay Jones: I have regular discussions with colleagues across Government on rail infrastructure. The UK Government are committed to building a strong rail infrastructure network across Wales, which will improve connectivity and drive economic growth. We have provided over £390 million for Welsh rail in recent years, and we recently announced a further £1 billion to fund the electrification of the north Wales main line.

Karin Smyth: The Welsh Affairs Committee highlights the need for greater connectivity between Swansea, Cardiff and Bristol, which would be of huge benefit, particularly for sports and music fans coming to Ashton Gate in my constituency. Why has the Wales Rail Board failed to initiate recommendations and other further improvements?

Fay Jones: The hon. Lady’s constituents will be greatly affected by the project that she mentions and by the performance of Great Western Railway, which is not sufficient. The Office of Rail and Road has launched an investigation into poor train punctuality and reliability in Network Rail’s Wales and western region, and we await the recommendations of that review. I add that industrial action has affected things.

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Network Rail and its subcontractors on completing the repair works on the longest wooden rail bridge in Europe across the Mawddach estuary in Gwynedd?

Fay Jones: I certainly will join my hon. Friend, and I am delighted that he takes such keen interest in Welsh rail infrastructure and raises it here on such a regular basis. He is right to flag that project, which is an example of this Government’s record investment in rail infrastructure in Wales. I was pleased to visit the project and give it my full support.

Steelmaking

Chris Elmore: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the steelmaking industry in Wales.

Alex Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the steelmaking industry in Wales.

David Davies: The Government are investing £500 million to secure the future of steelmaking in Port Talbot for generations to come. It is one of the largest UK Government support packages for steelmaking in history, and it will protect 5,000 jobs directly with Tata and many thousands more in the supply chain.

Chris Elmore: Last week, the Secretary of State stated in the steel debate that he understands
“the devastation that people will feel in Port Talbot—the whole community, but especially those people who face the loss of their jobs”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 264.]
at the plant and beyond. Why is it, then, that the Secretary of State or the Business Secretary did not put in a red line on job losses while this work was being done, especially given that Tata has this morning doubled down on those losses at the Welsh Affairs Committee? It is nothing short of a disgrace.

David Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Tata approached the UK Government and said it was intending to pull out of the United Kingdom. If Tata had pulled out completely, that would have immediately cost 8,000 jobs and many thousands more in the supply chain. The Government therefore acted to take the only deal available, which was to build the electric arc furnace and save thousands of jobs.

Alex Cunningham: I do not think that thousands of jobs will be saved at all. The people of Teesside, who saw the Tory Government abandon them and end virgin steelmaking at Redcar, leading to the loss of 3,000 jobs, will sympathise with those in Wales. The failure of the same Government will see virgin steelmaking also ended in Wales, with the loss of another 3,000 jobs, and leave the UK even more reliant on imports, as they are surrendering the market to other countries. Why would the Government want to do that when steel is a foundation industry and, with the introduction of new technologies, could have a bright future?

David Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that 100% of the materials—the iron ore and coke—used to produce steel in Port Talbot are imported from abroad. At the same time, we are exporting 8 million tonnes of scrap steel, so building an arc furnace to make use of that scrap steel will make us less dependent on other countries for our steel.
As far as job losses are concerned, the UK Government have put aside a budget of £80 million, combined with £20 million from Tata, to support anyone who loses their job. Thus far, we have not had one single penny towards that from the Welsh Labour Government—who, by the way, are able to find £100 million to create a whole load of extra Senedd members in Cardiff Bay. I know where my priorities are: with the steelworkers.

Chris Clarkson: Steelmaking is essential to our national security, as is reaching net zero. The problem is that the Welsh Labour Government cannot make their mind up about which is more important. After trying to kill off the steel industry with their green measures, they now complain that the UK Government are not doing enough to support that industry. Does the Secretary of State think that they do not really know their ACAS from their NALGO?

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have looked carefully at this, and very little steel being produced by Port Talbot is going into the defence industry, but the defence industry is being supplied with steel from an electric arc furnace by Sheffield Forgemasters. There is absolutely no reason why an electric arc furnace built at Port Talbot, using UK Government support, cannot help support our defence industry in the years to come.

Victims of Crime

Emma Hardy: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting victims of crime in Wales.

Fay Jones: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of topics including on justice matters. The Government are committed to supporting victims. By 2025, we will have quadrupled funding in England and Wales for victim and witness support services from 2010 levels.

Emma Hardy: Nine in 10 crimes went unsolved in Wales in the last six months. What does the Minister say to the victims of the 82,000 unsolved crimes?

Fay Jones: I would point to the Government’s record on crime. Last week’s Office for National Statistics crime survey shows drops in all major crime types, with an average reduction of about 50%. Violent crime is down by 51%, neighbourhood crime is down by 48%, and theft is down by 46%. That is due in part to the fact that the Government have met their commitment to provide 20,000 extra police officers. My own force, Dyfed-Powys, has now got an extra 143 officers.

Levelling-up Funding

Robin Millar: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of levelling-up funding on Welsh communities.

David Davies: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and delivery teams in the Department for Levelling Up,  Housing and Communities on the progress of levelling-up fund projects in Wales. I look forward to hearing more about the projects taking place in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Robin Millar: The Môr i’r Mynydd—sea to mountain—active travel route in the Conwy valley received an £18.6 million boost through levelling-up funds The projects will make a positive difference to communities in Glan Conwy, Betws-y-Coed and Trefriw. Apart from unlocking the Conwy valley to visitors, it will help young people get to school safely and workers to their jobs. I meet regularly with Conwy County Borough Council about the progress of those projects. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that levelling-up funds are being delivered effectively in Wales?

David Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a champion of levelling-up fund schemes in his constituency. The levelling-up funds have allowed us to keep our post-Brexit promise to ensure that Wales continues to be generously funded. That is one of many such projects, such as the levelling-up funds, the freeports and the investment zones that are ensuring that Wales levels up.

Grahame Morris: Like the towns and villages I represent, coalfield communities in Wales are still bearing the brunt of deindustrialisation. I am delighted that we will have a debate tomorrow on miners and mining communities, and I encourage Welsh colleagues to attend. Can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that levelling-up funding in Wales and across the coalfields in the UK is targeted at the most deprived, left-behind areas, which have suffered most?

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say we need to target the areas most in need, but that is exactly what this Government have been doing. It is not just about levelling-up funds; we have had four growth deals across the length and breadth of Wales, three rounds of levelling-up funding, two investment zones, two freeports, an electrified rail line in north Wales and an electrified arc furnace in south Wales. The reality is that while we are committed to levelling up, the Welsh Labour Government are committed to levying further taxes on people and businesses on Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I want to say that recent exchanges have  been lively, to the point where it is becoming difficult  for colleagues to hear what is being said clearly, and there has been an escalation in unhelpful exchanges across the Floor of the House from sedentary positions and the attempted use of props. Some of the language used in questions has also fallen short of the standards of good temper and moderation that should characterise the proceedings of this House. I know there is a general election approaching, but I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to exercise greater self-restraint in their choice of words and in their general behaviour, both when they are asking a question and when they are not.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Joanna Cherry: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 January.

Rishi Sunak: On Monday I met the families of Grace O’Malley-Kumar, Barnaby Webber and Ian Coates, who were killed in Nottingham. I assured them that we would do whatever it takes to get the answers that they want. Following constructive dialogue over past months, I welcome the significant steps the DUP has taken to make restoration of the Executive possible. I also thank the other political parties in Northern Ireland for the patience they have shown. After two years without an Executive, there is now the prospect of getting power-sharing back up and running, strengthening our Union, giving the people the local, accountable government that they need and offering a brighter future for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary will be making a statement shortly. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Joanna Cherry: Last week I met a constituent who was employed not by the Post Office, but by a supermarket that operated a franchise post office. She was wrongly accused of dishonesty as a result of the faulty Horizon system and put through a disciplinary process by her employer, the supermarket, which had a profound impact on her life. She is not alone—there are others in her position—yet there is no provision for compensating people who worked in franchise post offices, as she did. Will the Prime Minister give me a commitment that he will include those victims in the Horizon scandal compensation scheme?

Rishi Sunak: I am very sorry to hear about the hon. and learned Lady’s constituent’s case. As I have said, it was an awful miscarriage of justice and everyone affected deserves not only justice, but compensation and answers. I will make sure we look into the precise details of her constituent’s case—surely there will be others like that—and will make sure that the Minister gets back to her with all due haste.

Henry Smith: Sustainable aviation fuel plays a significant part in the sector’s decarbonisation. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commit to further policies for a SAF mandate to generate greater demand, and for a revenue support mechanism of the kind that other sectors, including solar and wind-powered generation, have? Will he give a commitment that work will start by the end of next year on the five promised sustainable aviation plants here in the UK?

Rishi Sunak: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are committed to ensuring the SAF mandate will be in place by 2025. By mandating the use of sustainable aviation fuel, we will be able not only to  deliver carbon savings, but to create a brand-new UK market. As one of the steps in introducing the revenue certainty mechanism that he talks about by 2026, the Department for Transport will be consulting in the spring of this year on options for how that should work in practice.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: May I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the DUP’s statement on the return of the Northern Ireland Executive? This is an important moment, but we now need all sides to work together to get Stormont back up and running for the people of Northern Ireland. I, too, met the families of Grace, Barnaby and Ian on Monday. It is impossible to express in words the horror that they have been through, and continue to go through. We must all redouble our efforts to do everything we can to help them with their campaign. This week, two young lives—16-year-old Max and 15-year-old Mason—were taken in Bristol. I know the whole House will join me in sending condolences to their families and friends.
One of the most difficult experiences for any Member of this House is speaking to those at the sharp end of this Government’s cost of living crisis. Nobody could fail to be moved by the plight of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). His mortgage has gone up £1,200 a month, and he has been forced to quit his dream job to pay for it. A Tory MP counting the cost of Tory chaos! After 14 years, have we finally discovered what they meant when they said, “We’re all in this together”?

Rishi Sunak: Thanks to the mortgage charter that the Chancellor introduced last year, millions of mortgage holders across the country are benefiting from mortgage support. Rather than take the approach that the right hon. and learned Gentleman just did, it is important to focus on the practical support in place to help people who need it. Someone on a typical mortgage is able to save hundreds of pounds thanks to those reforms. Recently, we have seen mortgage applications at a multi-month high, as a result of confidence returning. If he really cared about helping people with the cost of living, he would do more to celebrate and acknowledge the fact that, thanks to our plan, millions of working people will start to pay hundreds of pounds less in tax from this month’s payslip. We all know that is not a priority for him. He said he wanted to back people on the cost of living, but I read that he has described tax cuts as “salting the earth”. It seems that his shadow Chancellor is equally confused; in Davos, she said that she backed tax cuts, but back here in Westminster she called them a “scorched earth” policy. She obviously cannot decide which Wikipedia page to copy this week.

Keir Starmer: For every £2 the Prime Minister says he is giving people back, he is taking £10 out of their back pocket through higher tax. He thinks they should be dancing in the street and thanking him. There are 200,000 people, just like the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), coming off fixed-rate mortgages and paying more each and every month, because the Conservatives crashed the economy. Does the Prime Minister know how much their monthly repayments are going up by?

Rishi Sunak: As I said, someone on a typical mortgage of about £140,000 with 17 years left is currently paying around £800. As a result of the ability to extend their mortgage term or switch to a six-month interest-only mortgage, someone on the average mortgage will be able to save hundreds of pounds. Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he cares about the cost of living, but what would have the biggest impact on everyone’s cost of living is his idea to spend £28 billion; a shadow Treasury Minister confirmed just this morning that they remain committed to that. But he has no plan to pay for that £28 billion—no plan at all. That is typical Labour economics. They want to keep the spending but drop the payment plan. At the weekend I saw the former Labour leader—the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s mentor—who was clear that Labour will make their sums add up with tax rises on people’s assets: their homes, pensions and businesses. It is the same old Labour party—no plan and back to square one with higher taxes.

Keir Starmer: The Government have crashed the economy, mortgages are through the roof and they have doubled the debt, and the Prime Minister thinks he can stand there and lecture other people about fiscal responsibility. He did not answer the question. Hundreds of thousands of people are coming off fixed-rate mortgages and facing huge mortgage increases, and the Prime Minister will not even do them the courtesy of answering the question. [Interruption.] No, he didn’t, so I will ask him again.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I was very clear at the beginning. My constituents want to hear—if yours don’t, please leave.

Keir Starmer: Does the Prime Minister have any idea how much mortgages are going up by this month for those coming off fixed-rate mortgages?

Rishi Sunak: Again, I point the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to my previous answer. Everybody’s situation will be different. Someone on a typical mortgage of around £140,000, who is currently paying £800, will be able to keep their mortgage payment essentially the same by using the facilitations the Chancellor has put in place. That is what we have done to help people. Again, it is incumbent on the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain to the British public how his policy of decarbonising the grid by 2030 will be funded. He will not give the answer, but helpfully the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), popped up at the weekend in an interview in The Sunday Times and said that Labour does not need a plan to pay for it because, in his words, it will “produce real savings”, and it makes clear “economic sense”. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to talk about it at all. All these years later, it is the same story: the right hon. Member for Doncaster North has carved a promise in stone, and everybody else just looks away in embarrassment.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister just does not get it. The Government have crashed the economy; mortgages are skyrocketing; they are doubling the debt. They say they are going to max out the Government’s credit card at the next Budget—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the Chief Whip is getting very carried away. He does not want to lead everybody for a cup of tea, does he? Come on.

Keir Starmer: The Government have forfeited the right to lecture others about the economy. Somebody coming off a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying an average of £240 more each and every month—a constant reminder that working people are paying the price for the damage the Government have done to the economy.
This week, I met an employee at Iceland in Warrington—Phil. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Gibson, the same voice keeps appearing again, and it will not appear any more. I am just letting you know now.

Keir Starmer: Laughing at an Iceland employee who is struggling with his mortgage—shame. Phil told me his mortgage is going up by a staggering £1,000 a month. He does not want other averages—other people, other stories. This is what is happening to him. If the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, on £120,000, cannot afford this Tory Government, how on earth can people like Phil?

Rishi Sunak: Thanks to the management of the economy, Phil and millions of people like him are now ensuring that inflation is less than half the rate that it was when we were talking a year ago; that is putting more money in their pocket. Thanks to this Government, Phil and millions of other workers—not just at Iceland, but across the country—are benefiting this month in their pay packet from a tax cut worth hundreds of pounds for someone on an average salary.
I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman explained to Phil the cost of his policies. Did he explain how Phil is going to have to pay for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s £28 billion green spending spree? Did he explain what it will cost Phil in higher taxes, with more coming out of his pay packet? Did he explain to Phil that he would be better off sticking with our plan, rather than going back to square one with him?

Keir Starmer: I invite the Prime Minister to get in touch with Phil and explain to him how paying £1,000 more in his mortgage is making him better off, because that is not how he feels. The Prime Minister is so out of touch, it is unbelievable. Finding hundreds of pounds extra per month may not seem like a big deal to the Prime Minister, but let me tell him that most people do not have that sort of money knocking around.
If that was not bad enough, this week, the Prime Minister told every council in the country to put their council tax up by the maximum of 5%. That is 26 tax rises now, Prime Minister. He says everything is fine, and people are better off, but when people see their mortgage going up, their council tax going up and food prices still going up, who does he expect them to believe: his boasts, or their bank account?

Rishi Sunak: Again, I was puzzled—the right hon. and learned Gentleman resorts here, as always, to the politics of envy. I was genuinely surprised that, after recently and repeatedly attacking not just me but the Government for lifting the bonus cap, the shadow  Chancellor has announced, just today, that she now supports the Government’s policy on the bankers’ bonus cap—I do not know whether he mentioned that to Phil when he was having his chat, but I am sure he can fill us in. I can tell him that trust and economic credibility come from sticking to a plan, but it is becoming clear that we cannot trust a word he says. When the shadow Chancellor claims that they will not borrow much or raise Phil’s taxes, we now know that those promises are just not worth the Wikipedia page they were copied from.

Keir Starmer: I actually did not expect the Prime Minister to be laughing at Phil. I did not expect that—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Look, I made the statement very clear. It is very serious that we make sure that people hear both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It matters to the people who watch the proceedings of this Chamber. The behaviour that seems to be carrying on is not good.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister just does not get how hard it is for millions of people across the country like Phil. That is the primary problem: they are struggling with their mortgages, their bills and the spiralling cost of living. The Prime Minister’s response is never to take responsibility, and never to show contrition or even any level of basic understanding. He is so detached that he thinks he can paint a world in which their problems simply do not exist. The problem is that he cannot even fool his own MPs, let alone anyone else. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk says he is “exhausted” and is looking forward to new opportunities outside of Parliament. Why does the Prime Minister not do him a favour and call an election, so that he and the whole country can move on?

Rishi Sunak: Whether it is Phil or everyone else across the country, the plan that we are putting in place is working to help people and we are making progress: just this week, taking action to stop children vaping; just this week, ensuring that people can visit their pharmacies to get the healthcare they need, freeing up millions of GP appointments; and just this week, millions of working people starting to see hundreds of pounds of tax cuts delivered in their pay packet. That is a plan that is working. All the right hon. and Learned Gentleman is offering is £28 billion of tax rises. And that is the choice: a brighter future with us or back to square one with them.

Mark Pawsey: The Prime Minister likes to attend live sport, so I wonder whether he will join me in welcoming the planning inspector’s decision to uphold Rugby Council’s rejection of an application for development at Brandon Stadium in my constituency, to keep the doors open for it to remain a sporting venue so that future generations will enjoy the thrills and spills of motorcycle speedway and stock cars.

Rishi Sunak: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute and being proud of Britain’s rich history in the automotive and motorsport sectors. The stadium he talks about is an historic motorsport venue. While it has been a shame to see it fall into disrepair, I hope that the  decision he refers to will enable the possibility of both speedway and stock car racing to return. I know that he will continue, rightly, to champion this cause.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP leader.

Stephen Flynn: When the Tories scrapped the cap on bankers’ bonuses in the autumn during a cost of living crisis, the Labour party rightly opposed it. Yet here we are, just three months later, and the Labour party supports scrapping the cap—shameful. Is the Prime Minister comforted by the fact that he is now no longer alone in this House on being completely out of touch with public opinion?

Rishi Sunak: As I said at the time, we supported the decision of the independent regulator because it was the right thing for financial stability, and because we on this side of the House have a set of convictions and we have a plan and we stick to it. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the flip-flopping, U-turning and no convictions of the party opposite.

Stephen Flynn: Of course, scrapping the cap on bankers’ bonuses was only made possible because of Brexit. What the Westminster parties are now telling the public is that it is OK for bankers to have unlimited Brexit bonuses, but the public who are sitting at home and struggling to feed their families have to suck up and deal with additional food costs as a result of Brexit red tape. That is the cost and that is the reality of broken Brexit Britain. Is it not the case that the great achievement of this Tory Government is getting the Labour party to agree to that bleak future?

Rishi Sunak: We are actually delivering benefits for people across Scotland, not least the new free trade deals that are opening up markets for Scottish exporters, freeports that are attracting jobs and investment, and the Brexit pubs guarantee that is cutting the cost of a pint in Scottish pubs. The hon. Gentleman talks about the cost of living, but what he could do to help the most is ensure that Scotland is not the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom—and not just for high earners; everyone earning £28,500 or more is paying more tax in Scotland than they would in England, thanks to the SNP.

Dehenna Davison: One punch thrown, two days on life support, then three children left without a father. A four-year sentence is handed down and the perpetrator is released after two, but one grieving mother has to live a life sentence of agony. Sentencing for one-punch killers is not working in this country. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to finally introduce a specific offence and a tougher minimum sentence for one-punch manslaughter?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done to bring attention to so-called one-punch manslaughter and to highlight the anguish that—as she knows well—those cases cause to the families of the victims. I know that the Ministry of Justice has looked very carefully at the amendment that she has proposed, and that she will shortly be meeting the Minister for Safeguarding to discuss both her specific amendment and how we might best address the wider issue.

Edward Davey: Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order! Ed Davey.

Edward Davey: My constituent Millie, a wheelchair user, had a serious accident at a sporting event. Millie was left waiting on the floor in pain for over two hours before an ambulance arrived. During her months in hospital since then, she has been dropped, badly, multiple times; left stuck in her bed for days on end; and even told to soil herself when there is no one to take her to the toilet. Before all this, Millie was living independently and working, but the prospect of her returning to work is being destroyed by the crisis in the NHS and care system. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that no one should ever have to go through what Millie has been through, so will he look again at our proposals to ensure that every patient receives the high-quality care that they need?

Rishi Sunak: I am very sorry to hear about Millie’s case, and I am sure that if there are specific aspects of it that need to be examined, the Health Secretary will follow them up with the right hon. Gentleman. More generally, we want to make sure that everyone gets the care they deserve, which is why we are not just investing record sums in the NHS but ensuring that there are record numbers of doctors, nurses and new, innovative forms of treatment such as surgical hubs and virtual wards. All that is showing that ambulance times, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, are lower today than they were this time last year.

Selaine Saxby: The No. 1 reason for children’s hospital admissions in my constituency is dental treatment, but we have no NHS capacity and no orthodontist in Barnstaple. Our dentists cannot recruit, even with a large golden hello. The emergency dental plan seems to have been stuck at the Treasury forever. Might my right hon. Friend use his spare set of keys and pop round to rescue it for us? My constituents and I would be ever so grateful.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend has rightly championed the provision of dentistry in her area. We are investing £3 billion a year, and the reformed contracts in dentistry from the NHS have improved access while ensuring fairer remuneration for dentists. We are also providing more financial support for those who need it the most—about half the courses of treatment last year were delivered to those who are non-paying, both adults and children—but yes, more needs to be done, and that is why our dentistry recovery plan will be published shortly.

Andrew Bridgen: More than two decades ago, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, misled this House by promoting and endorsing the Post Office Horizon IT system as perfect, protecting the large corporation that created it and causing untold harm, damage and misery to innocent people. Can the current Prime Minister think of anything he has promoted, in partnership with huge businesses, as safe and effective that has ultimately harmed the British people? Will he use this opportunity to correct that safe and effective statement, or will he choose the same line as Tony Blair and sit back, do nothing and let the misery continue to pile up?

Rishi Sunak: We have been clear that the Horizon scandal is a terrible miscarriage of justice, and we are doing everything we can to make it right. To what the hon. Member was more broadly insinuating, let me be unequivocal from this Dispatch Box that covid vaccines are safe.

Jo Gideon: The shocking revelations of the Horizon scandal highlighted the Post Office’s financial incompetence, and my right hon. Friend will know that the public’s confidence in the institution is at an all-time low. Does he agree that as high street banks are closing branches across the country, we should look at developing new community banking solutions rather than giving the Post Office sole responsibility for providing access to cash and other banking services in poorly served neighbourhoods?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but I would just say that we should not make the mistake of conflating this scandal with the actions of many hard-working local postmasters and sub-postmasters. Customers can access cash and banking services through a wide range of channels, including a contract with the Post Office Counters service, which provides a valuable channel. I agree with her, however, on the importance of access to cash, which is why the Government have legislated to protect that as part of the recent Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, to ensure that the vast majority of people should be no more than 3 miles away from such a cashpoint.

Dawn Butler: One of the Nolan principles—integrity—states that holders of public office should not act to gain material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends. On 6 January the Prime Minister tweeted a link to the Conservative party website that seemed to scrape people’s data and place unwanted cookies on their machines. The Good Law Project is now pursuing this. Can he assure the House that no laws have been broken by his party?

Rishi Sunak: Of course our party follows all laws.

Robert Jenrick: A first responsibility for Government is to fix the housing crisis that young people did not cause. Three years ago, we dragged house building in this country up to the highest level since 1987, after the last Labour Government left it at its lowest level since the 1920s. But house building is weakening and we need to do more. Will my right hon. Friend consider using the Budget to do as he and I did together during the pandemic: cut stamp duty to boost housing starts, reignite the economy and support thousands of businesses across our country?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is right to point out that since 2010 we have delivered 2.5 million additional homes, and we are on track to deliver 1 million just in this Parliament and help over 850,000 families into home ownership through schemes such as Help to Buy and the right to buy. Obviously, tax decisions are a matter for the Chancellor, but I would point out that our existing stamp duty relief for first-time buyers ensures that the vast majority of first-time buyers in our country pay absolutely no stamp duty.

Marsha de Cordova: The all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment has today published polling that found that nearly half of employers exclude blind and partially sighted people from their workplaces and that one in four said that they would not be willing to make workplace adjustments. The disability employment gap remains stubbornly at 30% and the pay gap means that blind and partially sighted people effectively work for free for 47 days of the year. Will the Prime Minister meet me and sight loss organisations to discuss how we can create a more inclusive workforce?

Rishi Sunak: I share the hon. Lady’s ambition for an inclusive workforce. The record in supporting those with disabilities into work over the past several years has been incredibly strong. I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is actively looking at that and making sure that our accessibility plan is up to date and inclusive. I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

Michael Ellis: Having visited recently, I know that Israel remains in shock following the rape, murder and butchery carried out by Hamas. All of us want to see a peaceful and demilitarised Palestinian state. However, Hamas remain in control in large parts of Gaza, support for them is growing in the west bank, polls show that nearly two thirds of Palestinians reject co-existence with Israel and the Palestinian Authority has continued to promote hatred of Jews. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any recognition of a Palestinian state must address these issues and can come about only as part of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians?

Rishi Sunak: The Government’s position is clear. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that steps and conditions need to be put in place on this journey: first and foremost, the removal of Hamas from Gaza; a Palestinian-led Government in Gaza and the west bank; a concrete plan to reform and support the Palestinian Authority; a reconstruction plan for Gaza; and a two-state solution, which we have long supported. Let me be clear: we stand with Israel. The terrorist threat it faces must be eliminated and Israel’s lasting security must be guaranteed.

Neale Hanvey: On 15 November last year, I appealed to the Prime Minister to choose de-escalation and peace over violence, death and destruction, but he called me “naive”. So far, over 26,000 souls have perished in Gaza. In a powerful and moving open letter in Monday’s , the Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council cited Deuteronomy—
“I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life”—
and accused President Biden of choosing death. If the Prime Minister will not listen to me or the International Court of Justice, will he listen to the Rabbinical Council, or will he call it “naive” too?

Rishi Sunak: I have been clear multiple times that we are deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population of the fighting in Gaza. Too many people have lost their lives and there is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support in Gaza. I will not go over all the debates we have had about the conditions that are necessary for an immediate pause leading to a sustainable ceasefire, but I assure the House that we are doing everything we can to get more aid into the region as quickly as possible.

Kelly Tolhurst: Chatham docks support over 800 local, high-value jobs which are at risk because the owners are continuing in their pursuit to displace successful businesses, such as ArcelorMittal Kent Wire. The Labour council is failing to honour the commitment it made before the local elections to protect the docks and the jobs. Even the Leader of the Opposition said he was “proudly backing” the Save Chatham Docks campaign. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to see how we can protect the docks and save those jobs for my constituents? Is this not just another example of how Labour and its leaders change their position depending on which way the wind blows?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend has been a constant champion of Chatham docks and I am disappointed to hear that the local Labour council is failing to honour the commitments it has made. As she points out, I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has said one thing and then consequently done another. The docks support hundreds of jobs and I join her in calling on the council to rethink its approach.

Pharmacy First

Andrea Leadsom: With permission, I shall make a statement on the launch of our Pharmacy First service.
Pharmacies are at the centre of our communities. They are an accessible front door to our NHS for millions of people. Alongside general practice, optometry and dentistry, pharmacy is one of the four pillars of primary care in England. Four in five people in England live within a 20-minute walk of a community pharmacy. Pharmacies provide fast, fair and simple access to care and advice for the kinds of illnesses from which people suffer every day. Our constituents can now walk in off the high street whenever it suits them—whether they are at home, at work, or visiting somewhere.
Our pharmacists are not only conveniently located, but highly skilled professionals with years of training under their belts. The number of registered pharmacists in England has grown considerably under this Conservative Government—up 61% compared with 2010. None the less, these skilled healthcare professionals still represent a rather untapped resource in our NHS, so this Government are bringing forward reforms that will make the most of their expertise: giving people up and down the country a variety of quality care and wise advice, quickly and easily, saving them a trip to the GP; freeing up appointments for patients who need GPs the most; and driving our plan to cut waiting lists. The benefits are clear. That is why this Government have consistently taken the decisions that allow community pharmacists to deliver more clinical services and supply more treatments— whether that be other parts of the NHS referring patients suffering from minor illnesses to community pharmacists for advice and the sale of over-the-counter medicines, offering lifesaving blood pressure checks in pharmacies, or making it easier for women to access oral contraception in pharmacies. I am proud of everything that we have accomplished so far.
To unlock the full potential of our pharmacists, we need to go further and faster. That is why I am delighted to inform the House today that we are launching the Pharmacy First service—a personal priority of the Prime Minister, who is himself the son of a pharmacist. This will give pharmacists the power to supply prescription-only medications, including antibiotics and antivirals for seven common conditions: sore throats, ear aches, infected insect bites, impetigo, shingles, and minor urinary tract infections in women. More than 10,000 community pharmacies have signed up—over 95% of pharmacies in England—which is a brilliant sign of their approval.
The next time that anyone is suffering from any of those seven conditions, for most people their first port of call will be a quick trip or a call to their pharmacist. They will not need to see their GP first. They will not need to spend time making an appointment, and they can turn to their pharmacist whenever it suits them. That benefits everyone involved: people get the care they need faster; GPs can focus on more complicated cases; and pharmacists can make better use of their knowledge and skills. This is a common-sense reform. Pharmacists see and advise people with these sorts of conditions every day, but we  have now enabled them to provide prescription-only medicines where clinically appropriate, so that they can help people more easily.
All this will deliver results. Pharmacy First will make it easier for millions of people to get the care they need on the high street and, together with the expanded blood pressure and contraception service, it will free up as many as 10 million GP appointments, in turn reducing unnecessary trips to A&E, reducing the pressure on GPs, and driving forward our plan to cut waiting lists for patients.
The investment that we are putting into Pharmacy First will also level up digital infrastructure in community pharmacies up and down the country, streamlining referrals to and from GPs, giving pharmacists better access to relevant information from patients’ GP records, and allowing them to share relevant information quickly in return.
Pharmacy First is not just about delivering care faster, but about making care fairer by driving down health inequalities. That is because there is double the number of pharmacies in the most deprived communities in our country. Getting the right care, the right contraception and the right test will now be faster and simpler for all those people in our more deprived communities than it ever has been before. Thanks to Pharmacy First, they will be able to take full advantage of their pharmacists’ expertise and use them to complement the care they receive from their GPs and throughout the NHS.
Pharmacy First was made possible only through close collaboration with Community Pharmacy England, which I thank for all the work it has done and will continue to do to support community pharmacies to gear up and deliver this new service for our NHS.
We on the Conservative Benches have a clear plan for the NHS: getting patients the care they need faster; making the system simpler for staff; and making it fairer for everyone. That is our plan and I look forward to working with pharmacists up and down the country to deliver today’s announcements as we build a brighter future for families right across the country. I commend this statement to the House.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Preet Kaur Gill: I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
Let me start by paying tribute to the many organisations that have been involved in preparing for this launch and the thousands of pharmacies across the country that have embraced this initiative. Labour has long been arguing that pharmacists should play a greater role in the NHS, so we support this move.
As the Minister has said, pharmacies already do far more than just dispense repeat prescriptions and sell shampoo: they are medicine experts within the NHS; they are highly trained; they are easily accessible right across the country; and, as we saw during the pandemic, they are a highly trusted part of their communities. But their skills and knowledge are often under-utilised. Therefore, bringing more services to British high streets for patients to get treated more quickly and  conveniently is absolutely right. It is why, as we announced last week, we want to bring NHS out-patient appointments closer to people through high street opticians too.
The Minister is right to say that pharmacists can take pressure off GPs. However, let us be clear: this announcement will not make up for the 1,000 pharmacies which have been closed under the Conservatives, or the 2,000 GPs that have been cut since 2015. Patients today are waiting over a month to see a GP, if they can get an appointment at all. When Labour was last in office, people could get an appointment within 48 hours.
That is the thing with this Government: they give with one hand and take with the other. Will the Minister explain what has happened to the Government’s pledge to deliver 6,000 more GPs this year and what she is doing to support community pharmacies, which are already facing a perfect storm of inflationary pressures for running costs, recruitment challenges and an unstable medicines market?
The Government press release issued today claims that patients in England will be able to get treatment for seven common conditions at their high street pharmacy from today. I would like to dig down into whether that is actually the case. Healthwatch England has warned that it will take time for pharmacists to be trained in order to provide the services that Ministers have announced, so can the Minister tell us when she will be able to guarantee that the services advertised will actually be available?
Let me also ask about IT integration. To facilitate this roll-out, pharmacists were supposed to have access to GP Connect, so that details of patient consultations would automatically be sent to general practice through the clinical IT systems. The Government have had 12 months to get that ready, but from what I am hearing this morning it is still not live. Pharmacists are telling me that they can access only a summary of GP records, that they have to use another system to input what they have prescribed, and that they then have to download that and email it across to the GP. That is cumbersome. What estimate has the Minister made of the time that will be wasted at a local level to address that issue, and how long will it take before the system is ready?
Finally, what is the Government’s plan in the longer term to integrate the increase in independent prescribers who are being trained as part of the long-term workforce plan, and does the Minister agree with us that we should be accelerating the roll-out of independent prescribing to establish a community pharmacist prescribing service covering a broad range of common conditions? That would support patients with chronic conditions, which is the big challenge facing the NHS. Does the Minister agree that community pharmacies will have an important role to play in supporting GPs in the management of long-term conditions such as hypertension and asthma and in tackling the serious issue of over-prescribing, which is responsible for thousands of avoidable hospital admissions every year?
We agree that patients should be able to go to their local pharmacy to receive some services that they currently get at GP surgeries, such as vaccinations free of charge on the NHS, allowing patients to be seen faster and freeing up GPs to see more complex cases. By bringing healthcare into the community, patients will have greater  control. The NHS should be as much a neighbourhood health service as a national health service, with healthcare on the doorstep, there when it is needed—and with Labour, it will be.

Andrea Leadsom: Well, the very first appointment under Pharmacy First happened at 8.30 this morning.

Victoria Atkins: It was 8.31!

Andrea Leadsom: Oh, was it 8.31? I thank the Secretary of State. When will the services be available? I should think that many more are taking place already.
I am afraid that, while welcoming this, the hon. Lady is being a little pusillanimous with her praise. A lot of her suggestions, as she will know, are simply not true: already, well over 2,000 new GPs and tens of thousands of nurses are working in our NHS. Many thousands of additional practice staff are working in GP practices, and, as she will know, our brilliant GPs have made 50 million more appointments available each year ahead of the target in our manifesto. Good on them. They are doing an amazing job, and Pharmacy First will ease the ever-increasing burden on them.
The hon. Lady talks about technology. I am pleased to tell her that ensuring that the technology was in place was key in deciding when we could go live. There is a very short window in which some systems will have elements of manual intervention, but only for a few weeks. The whole system will be fully automated and will provide the ability to inquire into GP records and to swap advice, which is important for pharmacists to deliver the excellent service that they are already delivering.
Finally, the hon. Lady will know that community pharmacists have for some time now been delivering blood pressure checks, which in some cases are truly lifesaving. This is amazing patient access and patient convenience. The Labour party should, for once, simply praise it and be glad that the Government have stuck to our plan and got on with it.

Therese Coffey: I am so pleased to hear today’s announcement that we are delivering. It was one of the key things in our plan for patients that I wanted to ensure happened. In particular, many Members of this House, current and past, have had infections and, as a consequence of not dealing with them, have ended up in hospital. This is the sort of sensible approach that, frankly, met some resistance during my time in the Department, with worries about over-prescribing. It is about treating pharmacists like proper professionals and, most important, providing quicker access to necessary care, which patients will now properly enjoy.

Andrea Leadsom: May I say a huge thank you to my right hon. Friend for her contribution to kicking this project off? I feel very fortunate to be at the Dispatch Box on the day we launch it, because many others were involved in setting it up. She rightly highlights some of the problems with spotting things such as sepsis infections, which pharmacists are trained to spot. They really can be the first line of defence. Being able to walk in off the high street to see a pharmacist is incredibly valuable to us all.

George Howarth: As a long-standing supporter of the idea of Pharmacy First, I welcome the right hon. Lady’s statement and the specific reforms she has talked about introducing. She will be aware, however, that pharmacists in my constituency and further afield are very concerned that they are unable to do the job that they are already expected to because of lack of capacity and problems in accessing certain drugs that they need to prescribe. Can she indicate how the existing problems will be dealt with, so that they can do what is promised in Pharmacy First?

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the programme. There are around 14,000 licensed medicines, the vast majority of which are in good supply. The Department works very closely with the sector on finding alternatives and sourcing supplies of medicines, and most of the time we are able to meet the demand. Occasionally there are challenges, but that does not change in any way the ability of community pharmacists to be the expert medicine suppliers that they are, and to meet the need that members of the general public have for treatment and advice.

James Morris: I warmly welcome the statement. This initiative has the potential to transform primary care and access to treatment, but does the Minister agree that to realise its full potential, we need to invest in new technology—she mentioned digitalisation—to make sure that community pharmacies are set up to take advantage of these new opportunities? We also need to invest in the pharmacy workforce as part of the Government’s long-term workforce plan, so that those in alternative roles within pharmacies, such as pharmacy technicians, have the capacity to take the opportunities she has outlined.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Investing in technology is vital, but so is investing in the workforce. We have seen a 61% increase in the number of registered community pharmacists since 2010, and we aim in our long-term NHS workforce plan to increase that by a further 50%. We have already increased the number of training places for both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

Diana R. Johnson: I, too, welcome Pharmacy First, which I think is a very good initiative. In recent weeks we have seen the closure of two pharmacies in my area, on Beverley Road and Chanterlands Avenue. I am also told by leaders in the Humber pharmacy community that our area has one of the largest numbers of temporary closures because of problems accessing pharmacists. Will the Minister look favourably, therefore, on my idea to attach a school of pharmacy to Hull York Medical School? We need a school of dentistry, too. If we could have a centre of excellence in the Humber area, it might solve some of our specific workforce problems.

Andrea Leadsom: I am always happy to speak to colleagues on both sides of the House about their ideas for new dental and pharmacy schools. It is an ongoing interest.
England is, in fact, blessed with huge numbers of community pharmacies—well over 10,000—and four in five of us are able to walk to a community pharmacy  within 20 minutes. The number of pharmacies in more deprived areas is double the number in more well-off areas. We are very well served by our brilliant pharmacies, and I hope the Pharmacy First programme will improve their footfall and their value in each of our communities.

Bernard Jenkin: I very much welcome this initiative to encourage our pharmacies to provide more frontline healthcare. People need to know about this, because they often do not think of going to the pharmacy. What work are the Government doing in larger population centres such as Harwich and Dovercourt, which has over 20,000 people but no out-of-hours pharmacy cover? People have to make a round trip of more than 40 miles to collect a prescription on a Sunday, for example. Are the Government doing any work on 24/7 pharmacy coverage for larger population areas?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Pharmacists will keep their community pharmacy open for up to 72 hours a week in most cases, and up to 100 hours in some cases, which means there is weekend accessibility. We keep this under review, but the availability is very good.

Daisy Cooper: The Liberal Democrats have long supported calls for Pharmacy First, and the National Pharmacy Association, based in my St Albans constituency, has been calling for it since at least 2017. This is a welcome move, but it is long overdue. The Minister will be aware that there have been almost 700 permanent pharmacy closures since 2015, and the Company Chemists Association now estimates that eight pharmacies a week are closing, including one in my constituency. What steps is she taking to make sure there are no more closures this week, next week and every other week this year?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady might remember that the Liberal Democrats were in government for a good part of that period. She talks about pharmacy closures, and we see pharmacies opening and closing. There has been a small number of net closures, but we are very well served across England and we keep a close eye on that. Pharmacy First is a new boost to community pharmacies across England.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing in this initiative. I have fantastic community pharmacies in South Derbyshire—although, sadly, when the boundary changes come, I will lose Hatton to Derbyshire Dales. They are leaders in their field and they are trusted in their communities. This is a brilliant initiative, and I cannot thank my right hon. Friend enough.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank my hon. Friend.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. That was a perfect answer. I have to tell the House that we have a lot of business to get through today, and I will therefore need short questions and admirably short answers, because otherwise not everyone who is standing will have a chance to ask a question.

Barry Sheerman: I do not agree with most of what the Minister has said today. We are all in favour of pharmacies, but I think this statement is a distraction from the real problems in our health service, our GP service and much else.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please ask a question?

Barry Sheerman: Has the Minister looked at the number of pharmacies that have closed in the poorest areas of our country? Lastly, what is she going to do about companies like Boots? It has even closed its local branch in Westminster—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Because of his seniority, I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a little leeway. One question, one answer.

Andrea Leadsom: The more deprived parts of England are much better served by community pharmacies than better-off areas are.

Dean Russell: We have amazing pharmacists in Watford, and I have championed community pharmacies such as Sigma, which is a fantastic local business. Can the Minister provide an assurance that the general public will be made massively aware of this fantastic new service?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, there will be a significant communications package, beginning today.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister does not appear to be concerned about the record number of community pharmacy closures under this Conservative Government. Why does she think it is happening?

Andrea Leadsom: There has been a 61% increase in registered pharmacists since 2010, with plans to increase that number by 50% in the next few years.

Priti Patel: I commend my right hon. Friend for her excellent statement, but how will she tackle the issue of funding for prescriptions? Community pharmacies are struggling, and she will understand that the NHS tariff does not pay them the full price of products. Will she look at that as she rolls out the scheme?

Andrea Leadsom: The Government currently contribute £2.6 billion to community pharmacy, quite apart from the £645 million addition for Pharmacy First. We are about to start negotiations for the 2024-25 period.

Sarah Jones: The three pharmacies in Shirley, in my constituency, have been there for decades. They are very well known and very trusted, but they are all on the edge of having to close. To stay open, one pharmacist is using their own savings and not paying themselves a wage. I welcome your announcement, but would you read a letter from them—

Eleanor Laing: Order. There may have been lax obeying of the rules at other times, but would the hon. Lady please refer to the Minister as “she”, not “you”?

Sarah Jones: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was an error.
Would the Minister read that letter, consider these issues and perhaps meet us to talk about it? They are good people, and we want to keep their pharmacies open.

Andrea Leadsom: I am of course happy to read the letter, but I would say that Pharmacy First offers a significant new boost to community pharmacies.

Edward Timpson: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, across Cheshire and Merseyside, including my Eddisbury constituency, 535 community pharmacies will be starting the Pharmacy First initiative today. Particularly in rural areas, pharmacies are a lifeline for many people. Can she reassure patients of the clinical competence of pharmacists to make prescriptions, and can she reassure pharmacists on the issue of clinical liability?

Andrea Leadsom: I can assure my hon. Friend that pharmacists are highly skilled and better trained than ever before in this country. They are fully equipped to meet the demands of their new prescribing role.

Clive Efford: I welcome the Pharmacy First initiative—its roll-out is long overdue—but what expectations are we creating in the minds of patients attending pharmacies? Will pharmacists be trained in denying medication to people who turn up expecting to be given a prescription of some sort? Clearly, the initiative will encourage more people to present in order to get medication when it may not be necessary.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Of course, pharmacists will be prescribing for seven common conditions. Plenty of referrals will be made to GPs, and from GPs to pharmacists, to give patients the accessibility and the appropriate level of assessment for their needs.

Jeremy Quin: Pharmacies in Horsham have asked for such a scheme, so they will very much welcome it, as do I. However, as the Minister is aware from our one-on-one discussions, for which I am grateful, there are currently issues of access to pharmacies in Horsham. Will she ensure that the sector is appropriately resourced and has the right training in order to ensure that the scheme is the great success that it deserves to be?

Andrea Leadsom: Absolutely, and I am always happy to discuss that further with my right hon. Friend.

Jim Shannon: Northern Ireland’s minor ailments scheme, and this Pharmacy First initiative, are acknowledgments that GPs can spend up to 40% of their working day on minor ailments, but the scale in Northern Ireland is different from what has been proposed for England. Is there capacity for a UK-wide roll-out of Pharmacy First to take pressure off our GP services? If there is, that would be the right thing to do.

Andrea Leadsom: I seriously look forward to the re-establishment of the Stormont Assembly so that it will be possible for Northern Ireland to implement such a scheme itself.

Robert Buckland: I warmly welcome the statement. I have been a strong champion of pharmacies in my constituency. We are experiencing challenges, however, when the likes of Boots withdraw their services. It is difficult to transfer or apply for licences, despite the fact that we have a number of keen applicants who want to provide important pharmacy services. What more can the Government do to speed up and make the licensing application procedure smoother and better?

Andrea Leadsom: I would love to hear more about that from my right hon. and learned Friend. I will be happy to look into it.

Munira Wilson: In recent months, Boots has closed two of three pharmacies in the Hampton area of my constituency. That has left Hampton North, which is one of the most deprived wards in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, without a single pharmacy, so elderly residents and those with long-term conditions have to walk for a lot longer than 20 minutes to access a pharmacy. Local GPs tell me that it is just not viable to set up a community pharmacy facility. Will the Government review the pressures on community pharmacy and consider the community pharmacy contractual framework so that we can make this initiative work and take the pressure off GPs?

Andrea Leadsom: As I have already mentioned, there are many community pharmacies starting up all the time, as well as closing down. The hon. Lady will appreciate that the Pharmacy First initiative is a real boost to community pharmacies. I am happy to discuss it with her, but I would imagine that there will be the capability to open new community pharmacies in her area.

Richard Drax: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and her Front-Bench colleagues on rolling out this initiative. The Isle of Portland had two pharmacies, both run by Boots, but one is now shut. Can I meet my right hon. Friend and Front-Bench colleagues to discuss how we can ensure that deprived areas such as Portland retain the pharmacies that they desperately need?

Andrea Leadsom: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Alistair Strathern: With so many of my constituents waiting a long time to see GPs, any boost to primary care capacity must be welcomed, so I thank the Minister for today’s announcement. The GPs and pharmacy staff I meet raise concerns about recruitment to open roles. What assurances can the Minister offer that this will not be another policy, like the childcare announcement, that lacks the workforce or sectoral strategy to really gain the full benefits?

Andrea Leadsom: As the hon. Gentleman will know, our NHS long-term workforce plan intends to increase by 50% the number of registered pharmacists. That work is under way and includes increasing the number of pharmacy technicians.

Vicky Ford: It is great that people will be able to go to the pharmacy for their prescriptions, as well as for the products that they need, without the need to visit a GP. Chelmsford has some great community pharmacies, but Boots is closing three branches. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can ensure that the people of Chelmsford will be able to get to a pharmacy, in order for the initiative to work?

Andrea Leadsom: I would be very happy to meet my right hon. Friend.

Helen Morgan: The community pharmacy in Wem in my constituency has struggled to find a full-time pharmacist, relying instead on locums. That means that opening times are erratic, people cannot rely on the service, and the pharmacy is loss-making because locums are so expensive. How will the Minister help pharmacies in rural areas to recruit the full-time pharmacists and reduce their reliance on locums?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady will be aware that, although a few are owned by GP practices, community pharmacies are usually private businesses. We are training the registered community pharmacists that we need. Obviously, it would be for that local area to put in place its own recruitment policies, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss that further.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I put on the record my thanks to all the pharmacists who work in my constituency. The geography of my constituency can often mean that someone’s nearest pharmacy is about a mile and a half away across the water, so they end up driving 11 miles around to get to it. I believe that the mapping needs to change. Will she meet me to discuss it?

Andrea Leadsom: I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. Just to let her know, 100 pharmacies in Cornwall are signed up to Pharmacy First.

Paul Bristow: This brilliant announcement has the potential to free up many thousands of GP places in areas such as Peterborough, but the initiative will be the success that we need it to be only if more people know about. My right hon. Friend touched on an awareness campaign, but what efforts will she make to ensure that it reaches difficult-to-reach communities, such as those for whom English is an additional language?

Andrea Leadsom: There will be a big communications plan, which I am happy to share with my hon. Friend. Well over 100 community pharmacies in his area have signed up to Pharmacy First, which is brilliant news. It is incumbent on us all—and the purpose of the statement—to ensure that our constituents know about this excellent new service.

Michael Fabricant: Although my right hon. Friend and I share a common scepticism of the sclerotic state of the European Union, there are lessons to be learned from Europe. I am glad to see that, like France, we are now respecting community pharmacies. However, I have one specific question. In her statement, she said that one thing on which the pharmacy can act is female urinary tract infections. Why not male?

Andrea Leadsom: I wish my hon. Friend a happy Brexit day. I will have to come back to him on that issue. The point is that the service is limited to minor urinary tract infections. That might be why it does not include men, but I will certainly get back to him on that point.

Ben Spencer: I and many—if not all—of my constituents very warmly welcome the statement. On integration with other NHS access services, if an individual were to dial NHS 111 with one of the conditions mentioned in the statement, would they be diverted to a pharmacy or to a GP first?

Andrea Leadsom: To a pharmacy. NHS 111, GPs and urgent and emergency care can all refer to pharmacists for those particular common conditions.

James Wild: I join others in welcoming the new scheme. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, as part of the communications, that the NHS website is updated to show which pharmacies have signed up to Pharmacy First, and will she continue to encourage those that have not yet signed up to do so?

Andrea Leadsom: What is brilliant is that over 95% of all community pharmacies have signed up, including 172 in my hon. Friend’s area.

Nigel Mills: Key to the service’s success will be pharmacies actually offering it when patients turn up. Does my right hon. Friend know how many individual pharmacists have been trained to provide the services, and is there a way of gathering and publishing data on when pharmacies will offer the service, so that patients will not have a frustrated journey and we can see where the gaps are?

Andrea Leadsom: As I say, more than 95% of all community pharmacies have signed up to the service, and all their pharmacists have been trained in how to deliver it.

Steve Double: As someone who has championed the role of community pharmacies throughout my time in this House, I warmly welcome today’s statement. I am particularly delighted that we were able to host one of the pilot schemes in Cornwall, which was hugely successful, resulting in 7,500 consultations that took 6,000 appointments away from GPs and 75 A&E appearances. Will the Minister join me in thanking all the pharmacies in Cornwall that took part in that pilot, which was so successful?

Andrea Leadsom: Absolutely. It is only by trying these things that we can see how successful they can be, and I do believe this service is going to radically improve patient access to care.

Northern Ireland Executive Formation

Chris Heaton-Harris: With permission, I will make a statement on Northern Ireland Executive formation.
This Saturday would mark two years without a fully functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland. That is two years without locally elected Ministers able to take important decisions on Northern Ireland’s schools and hospitals and the broader economy, and above all, it is two years in which Northern Ireland has been held back from achieving the massive potential of this unique part of the United Kingdom.
It was nearly two years ago that the then First Minister resigned over the old Northern Ireland protocol. The Government recognised that the protocol did not deliver to the people of Northern Ireland the same freedoms that leaving the European Union delivered for the rest of the United Kingdom. As the party of the Union, this Conservative Government have sought to address those concerns by replacing the protocol with the Windsor framework. I maintain that the Windsor framework was, and is, a good deal for Northern Ireland that addresses the issues around the old protocol and sets out a new way forward. However, it alone did not prove sufficient to allow the devolved institutions to function with the cross-community support that is such an essential bedrock of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
As such, for the past few months, my team and I have been holding discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties on how we could see the return of devolved institutions. Those discussions have been long and necessarily tough, but that is testament to the patience of all Northern Ireland’s political leaders, who—as I have seen at first hand—work tirelessly to make sure that Northern Ireland is the most prosperous and safe society it can be. One of the people I have been talking to most is the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). It has been a pleasure to work with him on these matters, and it was also a pleasure to confirm recently that the Government will support his Bill that seeks to create a dedicated route for eligible Irish nationals who wish to apply for British citizenship. If passed, that legislation would support the close historical and geographical ties between Ireland and the UK, and I commend him on championing that cause.
I am also pleased to be able to outline today the package of measures we are announcing, which has four key elements. First, it further protects Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom by demonstrating our commitment to restoring power sharing so that it has the broadest support from across the community in Northern Ireland. I know that I am not alone in believing firmly that the long-term interests of the Union are served by persuading those who might not vote for Unionist parties, or even think of themselves as Unionists, that Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom offers the best solution for them and their children. I have always believed that making Northern Ireland work—indeed, making Northern Ireland thrive—is the surest way to safeguard the Union, and I commend all Unionists on taking bold steps to make that case for the Union, too.
We will also legislate to reaffirm Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, including as reflected in the Acts of Union. We will also recognise in domestic law that, with the vital democratic safeguard of the Stormont brake that a new Assembly would wield, the idea of automatic and permanent dynamic alignment of EU law no longer applies. We will also future-proof Northern Ireland’s position within the UK’s internal market against any future protocol that would create a new EU law alignment for Northern Ireland, and with it, barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the deal promotes and strengthens the UK internal market, delivering new legislation to guarantee and future-proof unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the whole of the UK internal market, and ensuring that internal trade within the United Kingdom takes place under a new UK internal market system. Only yesterday, we saw how quickly progress has been made, with a joint legal solution reached with the European Union on tariff rate quotas. That solution, which will be taken forward at the next UK-EU Joint Committee, will ensure that Northern Ireland traders can benefit from the UK’s independent free trade policy when importing agrifood goods, reflecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s customs territory. To maintain that focus on delivering in the interests of businesses for the future, we will put in place new structures, such as a new independent monitoring panel to ensure a practical and pragmatic approach without gold-plating.
Thirdly, the deal will recognise the importance of the connections across the United Kingdom, now and in the future. A new UK-wide east-west economic council will bring businesses and Ministers together to identify the opportunities that unite us across all parts of the United Kingdom, and a new body—InterTrade UK—will promote and facilitate trade within the United Kingdom, recognising that while international trade is important, so too is the vital trade that occurs within our internal market.
Finally, the deal will help put Northern Ireland’s public services on a sustainable footing, with funding totalling over £3 billion to support public services in Northern Ireland and provide a solid foundation for the Executive to deliver better outcomes in the day-to-day lives of the people in Northern Ireland. That funding is part of a financial package I announced before Christmas that will help address public sector pay pressures; provide an updated Barnett formula for Northern Ireland, now and into the future, reflecting the needs and unique circumstances of the people of Northern Ireland; and give the Executive significant funding to stabilise public finances.
Much of what I am announcing today is the result of a significant period of negotiations between the Government and the Democratic Unionist party, led by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). Many of us in this Chamber last week could not have failed to be struck by his unshakeable advocacy on behalf of the Unionist cause. That same determination, fortitude and tact was at the heart of his approach during those detailed discussions, and further to the right hon. Member’s comments in this place last week, I am absolutely sure that the whole House will join me in expressing support for him in utterly condemning those shameless figures who have tried to threaten and intimidate him for simply doing his job. [Hon. Members:  “Hear, hear.”] The right hon. Member is a man who is truly committed to Northern Ireland. He is truly committed to the Union, and has always worked hard to find solutions and improvements when others have taken the far easier path of simply criticising and heckling from the sidelines.
The result—as I hope hon. Members will agree—is a deal that, taken as a whole, is the right one for Northern Ireland and for the Union. With this package, it is now time for elected representatives in Northern Ireland to come together, end the two years of impasse and start work again in the interests of the people who elected them. This week, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was clear that this depended on the Government demonstrating their commitment to the Union, not just in word but in deed. That is exactly what we will do. Today, I am publishing the details of the deal, but I am also laying before the House the statutory instruments that enshrine several of its commitments in law. Those instruments will be debated in this place tomorrow, subject to a change in its future business with the will of the House, as an immediate show of good faith.
Once those instruments are passed by this House, as I hope they will be, I trust we will have the conditions to move onwards and to see Ministers back in post in Stormont swiftly. As those Ministers take their places, they will face massive challenges, but they have the tools to grasp those challenges, not least in moving to resolve the public sector pay issues that have been so disruptive. They will also be able to grasp the opportunities offered by Northern Ireland’s unique economic position and the good will that it enjoys across the world.
It is only right that I acknowledge that, for many in the community, an important part of this will be seeing Michelle O’Neill take her place as First Minister following the democratic mandate she won at the May 2022 Assembly election, recognising that the First and Deputy First Ministers remain equal in law. I look forward to working with the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister and all their colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to improve the lives of people from all backgrounds, whether Unionist, nationalist or other. As we move forward swiftly to give effect to our commitments, I urge the parties to do the same thing by notifying the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly to recall Stormont, electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and appointing new Ministers to the Executive.
It is time to build on the progress of the last 25 years. Today, we have presented a plan that will deliver the long-term change that Northern Ireland needs. It will strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in our Union and guarantee the free flow of goods across the entire United Kingdom. It is only by sticking to this plan that we will become a more united and prosperous country together, and I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
This is a very significant moment. It is our chance to restore to the people of Northern Ireland what they desperately need but have been without for almost two years: a functioning Government. It will also mark a first in Northern Ireland history when Michelle O’Neill  takes up her position as Sinn Féin First Minister in a power-sharing Government with a DUP Deputy First Minister. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his tireless efforts that have brought us to this point. His is a great achievement.
I would like to acknowledge the courageous and decisive leadership of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who in the face of abuse has consistently and persuasively made his case for change, while always being clear that he wanted to return to government with an agreement that was acceptable to all communities. I also want to thank the other party leaders in Northern Ireland—and I join the Secretary of State in doing so—who, with great wisdom, have allowed the time and the space for this deal to be reached, as well as to express my thanks to all the officials involved.
On the legislative changes that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has set out, I welcome the Government’s commitment not to ratify any new Northern Ireland-related agreements with the EU that would create new regulatory borders. This will be a helpful brake on divergence. Could the Secretary of State say when the new UK internal market lane will come into being?
We will of course examine in detail all the proposals in the statutory instruments to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—I understand that we are likely to debate them tomorrow—because we need to get on with this so that the Assembly can be recalled and the Executive established as quickly as possible. I have always made it clear that we believe in Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market of the United Kingdom, and that we support any practical measures to reinforce it that are consistent with the Windsor framework, which we also support, and that have the support of nationalists as well as Unionists. On that basis, we will vote for the legislation.
The money that the Secretary of State has announced, including the needs-based funding formula and the stabilisation funding, will enable a restored Executive and Assembly to give public sector workers a pay rise, for which they have waited too long, and to start to tackle the huge challenges facing communities and public services and make the most of the great economic potential of Northern Ireland. We also welcome the plans to defer and then write off Stormont’s overspend, provided that the Executive produce a new fiscal sustainability plan. How quickly does the right hon. Gentleman expect the money to be transferred, and when does he think the new Executive will produce a budget?
Finally, as we reflect on the importance of this moment, since the Good Friday agreement was signed the people of Northern Ireland have been without a devolved Government for over a third of the time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that we need to work together—all of us in the House—to prevent the institutions from collapsing again in the years ahead? Stability is everything, especially to the people of Northern Ireland after all they have been through, and we all have a duty to ensure that it endures.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his very kind words and for all the work he has done with me on these matters. I really do appreciate  the way we have been able to work together. It has contributed to our getting to this point and it has made a big difference, so I thank him for that.
The shadow Secretary of State is completely right that everyone in this House will need to work together to ensure stability for Northern Ireland and to ensure that the institutions do not fall again. It is vital that we all understand the responsibility that sits with us in this place: we are guarantors of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, and in every way we should consider that in everything we do, because this Union is stronger for it.
The shadow Secretary of State asked some questions. We hope to have the UK internal market lane in operation as soon as possible, and we obviously need some legal changes—I mean, other changes—to have that done. The money will flow as soon as the new Executive is up and running, and I very much hope that a new Executive will be sitting very soon.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Robert Buckland: I warmly commend the hard work of my right hon. Friend—and good friend—the Secretary of State. It is only a week ago that we passed legislation to extend the election period, and heard the impressive and powerful speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). He has demonstrated, with his colleagues in the DUP, that to lead is to choose and to make difficult decisions. They have done that, and I think respect and praise are due in large measure for their hard work.
I am particularly pleased that the Command Paper incorporates many of the sensible recommendations from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), which we share, on further legislation to make sure that the position of Northern Ireland within the UK internal market is absolutely cemented. I am particularly pleased that the Command Paper looks forward to new investment—not just the important investment in public services, but the enhanced investment zone proposal of £150 million, which will be at the centre of how we attract new inward investment to realise the huge potential that Northern Ireland presents for jobs and the economy both here in the UK and across the wider world.
It is tempting for this Parliament, once it passes the secondary legislation, to say that the job is done, but we cannot afford to devolve and forget. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this Government will not devolve and forget?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his welcome for this package of measures. It is a package, and it has been negotiated over a long period of time, with a better understanding of all the things that Northern Ireland needs to be an active and wonderful part of the Union. I welcome his comments on the investment zone, and he is absolutely correct in what he said at the end. Northern Ireland will never be forgotten in this place, and I hope we are demonstrating that today.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: Can I just say on behalf of my party that we very much welcome the progress that has been made? We are firmly of the view that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally, and we welcome the publication of the Command Paper.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the distance that has been travelled by all parties in getting to this point, but we were brought to this point by a failure of politics around the manner in which the UK chose to leave the European Union. Now that the politics has moved on, it is time for the politicians in Northern Ireland to step up, and we wish the MLAs well in that endeavour and look forward to seeing the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister taking office in what will be a very significant moment in history for all in these islands.
The Secretary of State describes his party as being the party of the Union, and I say to him that it has not gone unnoticed in other parts of the Union that Northern Ireland has for some time had the offer of a status, in its access to the UK market and to the European market, that other parts of the Union are now deprived of. I am sure that voters will draw their own conclusions from that.
I want to ask two questions. When might the details of any new fiscal framework emerge? While I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new east-west economic council, can the Secretary of State clarify what role there might be for the other devolved institutions in these islands to make that new council as successful as it possibly can be?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, his welcome and his help in the past few weeks and months, which has been much appreciated. Again, it has helped us to get to this place. He is right to recognise that Northern Ireland is a special place, and has a special place as the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border with the EU. In the past, that has created disadvantage, but we hope it will create advantage for it in the future. Everyone recognises that; it was recognised in the Windsor framework and, as he will see, in various choices we are making in the Command Paper.
On the fiscal framework, I very much hope that the incoming Northern Ireland Executive and Ministers responsible will work with His Majesty’s Treasury in great detail to make sure that we get that absolutely right. I have never conducted a negotiation with His Majesty’s Treasury in that sort of way, but I imagine that it has quite tight pockets, is very difficult to get hold of and probably would not want ongoing commentary. However, I am sure that it will make the matter as public as it can, when it can. Finally, on the east-west body, it is important that it works with all parts of Great Britain.

Julian Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his patience on this deal, as well as the Prime Minister and the DUP on negotiating such a tough and positive document. The Northern Ireland parties have been incredibly patient through the past months, and I pay tribute to them. I put on record my thanks to the Labour party and the shadow Secretary of State for Labour’s support for the Government’s   deal. This deal will be a huge relief to many across Northern Ireland, who have got to the end of their tether, whether the issue for them is public services, waiting lists or other elements of society. Does the Northern Ireland Secretary agree that the deal is a significant boost to the economy, to peace and to the Union?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his kind comments. Yes, I absolutely believe that this deal will bring greater prosperity to Northern Ireland. When I was given this role, I was, in essence, given three tasks by our Prime Minister. The first was to help him find a route through the Northern Ireland protocol conundrum, and that became the Windsor framework. The second was to try to get Stormont up and running, so that local people make decisions for their fellow people in Northern Ireland, and I would like to think that we are getting there. The third was to make Northern Ireland one of the most prosperous parts of our United Kingdom; I think we can all agree on that aim.

Gavin Robinson: On occasions such as this, it is courteous to thank the Minister or Secretary of State for the statement, but may I, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my party, thank the Secretary of State most sincerely for his steadfast endurance in our negotiations, for his commitment to ensuring that we got to this stage, for not giving up, and for resolving the issues that have been an impediment to devolution operating sufficiently and properly in Northern Ireland? He will know that on Monday evening and into Tuesday morning, my party took a significant decision to move forward, on the basis of what we know to be in the Command Paper published today.
Although we were told that the Windsor framework could not be reopened, we have succeeded. Although we were told that there would be no change to the green lane, it is gone. We were told that there would be no removal of barriers to trade between GB and Northern Ireland, but we have removed all checks within the UK internal market system, save for those ordinarily required for dealing with criminality and the prevention of smuggling. We were told that there would be no legal change to the Windsor framework or the EU text, yet—this was part of the process of ensuring trust and commitment—colleagues will have noticed the publication just yesterday of more than 60 pages of legislative changes to text on the European perspective. That will allow rest-of-the-world products and the benefits of UK-wide trade deals to truly be available UK-wide.
We are very grateful to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister, who was here earlier, and we are grateful for the offers of support and commitment from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. We are grateful for having got to this place today. We have turned the impossible into the possible, and are delivering the undeliverable in this Command Paper. We are hopeful for the future, but the Secretary of State will know that our position is predicated on full and faithful implementation and delivery of what we have achieved. Today’s Command Paper and yesterday’s legislative changes were published; in the spirit of the trust that we have established, and given the process that needs to flow, I would be very grateful if he could  indicate that tomorrow, subject to what the Leader of the House does, we will see the introduction and passage of the legislation that is so crucial to this programme.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. As I mentioned in my statement, he has been integral to what has been happening over the past few weeks and months. I really do enjoy working with him, and am looking forward to doing so in the future. He mentions a host of things. He is right to say that the Command Paper is clear: we will provide clear legal direction to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and other UK Government authorities to eliminate any physical checks when goods move within the UK internal market system, save for those checks required as part of managing the risk of criminality, abuse of the scheme, smuggling and disease.
The hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone that the deal is about safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. We have set out what that involves. It includes new measures in domestic legislation to affirm unfettered access and Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, as well as new structures, and steps to ensure that the full benefits of the Windsor framework are felt by people and businesses. As is shown by the draft tariff text that he mentioned, we can continue to show the joint solutions that the UK and EU can deliver under the Windsor framework. He asked me a very specific question about the timetable. I am committed to the timetable, as are the Government. Everybody in this House should know that. In all transparency, it is unbelievably important that, with the leave of the House, we get the business changed, so that we can debate those two statutory instruments and they can be passed. They are a fundamental part of the timetable that leads to Stormont’s return.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the progress made towards the restoration of power sharing, and thank the Secretary of State and the DUP for their dedicated work on that. I am sure there will be much to welcome in the papers published today, which we will need to scrutinise carefully in the 30 or so hours before we are asked to vote on them. However, one thing that we know that they do not contain is a removal of Northern Ireland from single market legislation. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government commit to continuing the dialogue with the EU, so that we can amend the Windsor framework, and restore democratic control over law making in every part of our United Kingdom?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend—one of the longest-serving former Secretaries of State in this House—for her comments and questions. She is absolutely right in all she says. The Command Paper, which I do hope people will have the opportunity to read before tomorrow, contains quite an amount of detail on the deal. It is a comprehensive deal. The statutory instruments tomorrow are just two small parts of a much wider package of items in the deal; this is all outlined and detailed in the Command Paper. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, she will also see an important change that we intend to make to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; it now has a  powerful democratic safeguard in the Stormont brake, which the new Assembly will have immediately at its fingertips.

Jamie Stone: As the Members behind me know, I was married in County Armagh at the very height of the troubles, and I heard the explosions and saw the huge bomb damage. Tragically, my wife’s family lost a number of friends in the troubles. I served for 12 years in the Scottish Parliament, so I have some knowledge of devolution. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State to make possible the maximum liaison between a restored Stormont—Godspeed to that—and devolved institutions such as the Scottish Parliament, so that the maximum benefit can be drawn from responsible working devolution?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he is absolutely right. I know of his history and the story about his wife, which he has mentioned to me a number of times. I thank him for his interest in all things Northern Ireland and all things Union. In fact, there is a body, the British-Irish Council, that does exactly what he suggests, at the highest level. Hopefully, at the next meeting of the British-Irish Council, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland will attend with representatives of all the other devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom.

Bill Cash: The proposed legislation is of great constitutional significance, yet it is merely a statutory instrument and not an Act of Parliament. What restrictions on its lawmaking has the EU agreed over the single market in Northern Ireland? What democratic improvements are being made to the Stormont brake in Northern Ireland to ensure divergence, and to enable the United Kingdom Government to remove or veto the imposition of EU laws?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He and I have had a number of discussions over the years on these sorts of matters, and his question is a very wise one. As I mentioned, we are amending section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so there is now a powerful democratic safeguard on the flow of EU law, which a new Assembly will have immediately at its fingertips. I thank my hon. Friend, because I know about the work that he did to ensure that section 38 was included in the Act. I hope he recognises that we are adding Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, which is a strong addition to section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020. Indeed, his original clause has been a big part of the solution to this conundrum, and I am truly grateful to him for it.

Sammy Wilson: Despite the gains made by my party leader and deputy party leader in these negotiations, the fact remains that there are still EU-manned border posts being built in Northern Ireland, which will create a border within our own country. When the Northern Ireland Assembly sits, Ministers and Assembly Members will be expected by law to adhere to and implement laws that are made in Brussels, which they will have no say over, no ability to amend and no ability to stop. That is a result of this spineless, weak-kneed and Brexit-betraying Government refusing to take on the EU and its interference in Northern Ireland.
The Government have admitted that there will be divergence in the future. On page 17 of the Command Paper, there is an indication that there will be a legal requirement to assess whether new legislation impacts on trade between Northern Ireland and GB. If it does, Ministers have to make a statement. We have had the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), saying only this week that that does not mean that the UK Government cannot introduce laws that diverge from the EU laws that apply in Northern Ireland. Which is it? Is Northern Ireland going to find that it has the ability to stay tied to the United Kingdom, or will the Government happily proceed to change laws here in Westminster, regardless of the impact it has on Northern Ireland?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but some of the points he made were actually incorrect. In the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, we said that there would be checks on goods going into the EU single market. I think that every piece of legislation we have proposed in this place has said that, but it will be UK folk operating the UK internal market scheme. Today, on the fourth anniversary of our leaving the European Union, I can tell him that the agreed package of measures will not change the freedoms and powers we have secured through Brexit or the Windsor framework. It will not reduce our ability to diverge, nor our commitment to do so, should it be in the interests of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to clause 13C in one of the statutory instruments. A whole swathe of things happen behind the scenes before a Bill is brought before this House. One of them, which the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has complained to me about before, is something we call the parliamentary business and legislation committee, or PBL. We do a Star Chamber of Bills, and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales attend to state whether there is any adverse effect of the legislation being mooted. What the right hon. Gentleman rightly asked for is transparency and the publication of a written ministerial statement when there is the possibility of a significant adverse effect on GB-NI trade. Publishing a written ministerial statement is not in any way what he says it is.

Richard Drax: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the DUP? Clearly, this is still a highly emotive issue, and understandably so, because when we left the EU, I, the House and the country were promised that we would leave as a United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but, as we have heard, it will still be subject to EU laws, so that axe is still grinding away and we must get rid of it. What is unhelpful is Sinn Féin’s whispering about unification at this highly emotive time. Can my right hon. Friend tell me, the House and this country that Northern Ireland will always be part of the United Kingdom? We are stronger together.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I have to tread slightly more carefully on that particular issue, because as Secretary of State I am responsible for making an independent assessment of the conditions that might lead to the border poll to which my hon. Friend alludes. I have to be very careful, but I am comfortable suggesting that,  certainly in my lifetime, Northern Ireland will be a strong and wonderfully prosperous part of the United Kingdom. However, it is very important to outline the parts of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that allow for all these things to happen, and any change would absolutely depend on the consent of both communities at the time. I certainly do not think anybody judges that to be in place at this point.

Colum Eastwood: It is important to point out that the people of Ireland, north and south, will decide the constitutional future of Ireland—nobody else. This is a very good day for the people of Northern Ireland, and I am very glad to see it. We are about to see something very significant: we will have the first ever nationalist First Minister and the first ever nationalist leader of the opposition, and I wish them well. In order to properly maintain this progress and make the most of it, will the Secretary of State convene a process with all the political parties and the Irish Government to look at how we can reform the institutions of the Good Friday agreement, to make sure that no one party can ever pull them down again?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the proposal. He mentioned at the very beginning of his question that the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement relies on the consent of both communities and then suggested reform, which certainly does not have the consent of one of them. However, I understand the point he makes. When people have asked me about future reform of the institutions, I have always said that this is a conversation that should be started within Stormont and by the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. The thing I hope for is not that particular conversation; it is for Stormont to be returned so that elected folk from Northern Ireland can govern for the people of Northern Ireland.

Priti Patel: It is absolutely vital that the democratic institutions and lawmaking powers are returned to the elected politicians in Northern Ireland, and today is clearly very historic and symbolic. At the same time, however, we know that Northern Ireland’s economic lifeblood is linked to the rest of GB, and I concur with the rest of my colleagues who have spoken on this issue. It is vital that we ensure not only that there is the ability to diverge and have the freedom to secure Northern Ireland’s economic lifeblood, but that the prosperity of Northern Ireland remains. May I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that we have the full ability to do that, and that it will be backed up by this Government in Westminster?

Chris Heaton-Harris: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted to give her the assurance she seeks, because this announcement will reduce neither our ability to diverge, nor our commitment to do so should that be in the interests of the United Kingdom.

Stella Creasy: Many of us welcome this day and hope that the restoration of Stormont is possible. If the Government are capable of removing trade barriers with the European Union for the constituents of Belfast, many of my constituents would like to see them do the same for them. May I press the Secretary of State on what he said about amending section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal)  Act 2018, because he will know that is the foundation of the practical application of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that many of us hold dear. His Command Paper talks about the “pipeline of EU law”. Can he clarify for the avoidance of doubt that any amendment he makes will not see any regression at all in the rights upheld in that document, and in particular the rights afforded to every single member of the communities in Northern Ireland in the wording of the Good Friday agreement and under the European convention on human rights?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes, I absolutely can.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his important endorsement, which is encouraging? May I ask my right hon. Friend about paragraph 145 of the Command Paper? Can he give an example of the circumstances in which a Minister might say that there would be an effect on the internal market and what that might restrict in practice?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Off the top of my head, I cannot give an example, because I have not yet needed to do that in the PBL—parliamentary business and legislation committee—as I have stated. The practical effect is one of transparency. I am aware that there are many Select Committee Chairs in this place. We want to ensure that when a Bill potentially has a substantial adverse effect on GB-NI trade and we are making those decisions, we are transparent about it and we tell people about it. The best way to do that is to inform this House through a written ministerial statement.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I remind him that we have been pressing the Government for action rather than words for more than two years, but we welcome the fact that action has been taken, both on trading and the constitutional position. Does he agree that subsequent to the next few days, we need to continue to work to close the narrow gap that remains? We have made significant and substantial progress towards what we asked the Government to do. Will he also indicate to the wider community in Northern Ireland that even when someone gets a large number of votes, such as Sinn Féin, if they have a mantra that their day will come, it will also go with less fanfare?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I see all politics as a process, actually. All politics is an evolution. In the Windsor framework, there is provision for when matters are discussed about Northern Ireland in the Joint Committee—the body that looks at the EU-UK relationship, legislation and its effect—that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can attend. We are not only moving on through Stormont returning, but we are ensuring that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard and that that process can continue.

Laurence Robertson: Given everything that the Secretary of State has said, can he assure the House that article 6 of the Act of Union,  which guarantees that everybody within that Union shall not be disadvantaged in any way, particularly with reference to trade, is still in place and will remain so?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I point my hon. Friend to the very large section and annex in the Command Paper on the Acts of Union. I know my colleague the shadow Secretary of State dug out the Acts of Union to read them in relation to this business. There are many bits of the Acts of Union that we would not really want to have now, because they introduced tariffs of their own, but I ask my hon. Friend to look at the annex in the Command Paper where we go into great detail on exactly the answer he wants.

Jeremy Corbyn: We thank the Secretary of State for his very welcome statement, and we take the opportunity to congratulate Michelle O’Neill on becoming the First Minister and all the other parties that have managed to bring this agreement about. Does he think that this agreement will lead to an increase in all-Ireland institutions and their effectiveness—in culture, tourism, transport, health and so on—and does he agree with the point, made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), that ultimately it is for the people of Ireland to decide their long-term future, not anyone else?

Chris Heaton-Harris: On the second point, it is for the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland to decide their futures in that particular matter. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a little way to go in this process before we have the First Minister and Deputy First Minister sitting, and this is an important part of that timetable, but we welcome that happening. He asked about all-Ireland institutions. This agreement means that those institutions set up by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, such as the North South Ministerial Council, can function correctly, and it also sets up new east-west bodies to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom is equally recognised and made stronger.

Richard Graham: May I join the shadow Secretary of State in hugely welcoming this great achievement by the Secretary of State, by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and by all the other party leaders with whom he successfully agreed to re-establish devolved Government at Stormont? As the son of a Northern Ireland Unionist family, I believe it will only be good for the stability and prosperity of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Can my right hon. Friend confirm when the internal market levy and the changes to tariffs on goods from countries with which the UK has a free trade agreement will come into place?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The factually correct answer is probably that those measures will come into place when the legislation is passed through this place.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Secretary of State knows that 2025 is just too long to wait for veterinary medicine issues to be resolved in Northern Ireland. That grace period is totally unacceptable.  He knows it will decimate veterinary practices, affect  farm viability and, according to the British Veterinary  Association, have a detrimental impact on public health. In paragraph 141 of this Command Paper, the Secretary of State indicates that he will set up a veterinary medicines working group. I welcome that, but will he confirm that if a speedy solution is not brought forward by the spring, he will table legislation in this House to unilaterally deal with this matter once and for all?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right; I think it is paragraphs 136 to 141 in the Command Paper that detail the issues he has rightly raised in this place, with me privately and in meetings with my officials. It is probably fair to say that he was the genesis of the veterinary medicines working group idea in paragraph 141. That group will receive expert opinion, and that is a vital part of the solution to this problem. My intention is to listen carefully to the group’s recommendations, because it will have the experts in this matter. At that point, he and I can have the next bit of conversation, although I hope that will not need to be the case, because I would like to think we can pursue solutions through technical discussions with the European Union, but let us see.

Robin Millar: I echo the comments of many colleagues across the House in welcoming the progress made on this matter. Through the Secretary of State, I thank the many people involved for the effort they have put in. We have two draft statutory instruments before us amending two sets of primary legislation, with the words “constitutional law” in one of them. The questions asked during this statement hint at the breadth and depth of the issues that such instruments raise. It seems slightly incongruous that they are coming to this place last, even though they are the first concerns of this House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that hon. Members should have time to read, digest and debate the instruments? Can he explain why the current proposals are for exactly that to be done in just 24 hours and with a short debate?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for his question; I know that he has talked to my Minister of State on these matters. Actually, our Standing Orders state the debating time for these things. The House is an interesting being, and I would not want to get in the way of its Standing Orders.
Secondly, as I tried to underline in a previous answer, a timetable has been agreed with the Democratic Unionist party, which the Government are committed to, and if we fulfil it, that will lead to the restoration of Stormont. The House is full of agile and able Members of Parliament who are amazingly good at scrutiny, and I know that they can do that very, very well in the time provided.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I thank my party leader and deputy leader for the many gains in the Command Paper. However, our leader said that there remains work to do. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm whether Northern Ireland still remains under the EU’s single market laws for the production of food and agrifood? Does the EU customs code still apply in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that such a situation is not compatible with UK sovereignty and Northern Ireland’s place as a full part of the United Kingdom? In accepting that, would he say that more work needs done  on this? Will he further outline what assurances he has had from the EU that the rules governing the new internal market system are acceptable to it?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. May I recommend that she re-reads the Windsor framework and indeed the Command Paper?

Tom Hunt: I applaud the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the wider Northern Ireland team. I know—I have seen this up close and personal—how passionate and dedicated they are on this issue. The people of Northern Ireland will ultimately be the winners when it comes to decisions being made locally, closer to them.
As a Member of Parliament from the new intake, I think it is a great shame that we have often felt at loggerheads with Democratic Unionist party Members. Ultimately, I share a huge amount of their values, and I absolutely appreciate their passion and how closely they cling to their identity. I share that passion. Will the Secretary of State ensure that this marks a new chapter when we can work more collaboratively to promote the place of Northern Ireland within our Union, which we all love?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that he is passionate about Northern Ireland: indeed, I saw his passion when I hosted him and he visited and looked around Northern Ireland. The answer to his question is yes. Yes, we need to move forward. Yes, we need to work with the Democratic Unionists. Yes, we need a positive way forward for Unionism so that Northern Ireland can forever stay part of our United Kingdom.

Stephen Farry: I am hopeful that Northern Ireland is now in a better place. I have always understood that, in the context of a hard Brexit, Northern Ireland would require some special arrangements. My party has always been open to maximising flexibilities, provided that those are done in a legal way and that we protect our dual market access.
On the financial package, I very much welcome the £3.3 billion for Northern Ireland, which reflects a cross-party effort. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a need for a further discussion to happen—potentially in the next Parliament—on a long-term review of Northern Ireland’s fiscal framework and fiscal floor? On reform, will he recognise that, building on precedents, the UK Government must lead that process? If we are talking about safeguarding the Union, we also have to talk about safeguarding the Assembly and the Executive.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which has been raised with me for months—if not since I became Secretary of State—by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who is rather keen on making sure that we have a long-term agreement and process in this space. I really look forward to working with Ministers in a reformed Executive on exactly that.

Paul Girvan: In the light of the answer the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart)—or the lack of an answer—I would like to reiterate that  point as well as ask about implementation and how Northern Ireland is affected by not getting access to duty-free. Every other airport in the United Kingdom has access to duty-free, yet those flying from Northern Ireland to any part of Europe cannot avail themselves of duty-free—it is the only airport on these islands where that cannot be done. That is one area where the single market is affecting us.
We are still part of that single market and, from what I see in the Command Paper, we will continue to be. As a consequence, in our energy market in Northern Ireland—I would like an answer on this—we are paying a carbon tax at an entirely different rate from any other part of Great Britain. For our electricity supply, our carbon offset is twice the level paid in any other part of the United Kingdom. What measures on that are included in the Command Paper? It was handed to us at what I would call the eleventh hour and 59th minute. We would like to be given time to get into the details. We very much feel like we are being bounced through a timetable and that we will not get through the detail that is supposedly in the statutory instruments and the Command Paper.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points. I think it is fair to say that Northern Ireland was part of a single energy market across the island of Ireland well before we left the European Union and that there have always been interactions on that basis. The answer to his question is contained in the Command Paper.
There are a whole host of things to say, but I will just make the point about the difference for Northern Ireland. It does have access to the EU single market and unfettered access to the UK’s internal market, but it is not subjugated to the European Union arrangements. It will not pay into the European Union budget. It is not subject to  European Union freedom of movement, services rules, environmental rules, labour rules or procurement rules; neither is it subject to the European Medicines Agency, the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy. Northern Ireland has unique circumstances because of its geographic location. Everybody recognises that. We want it to thrive in our Union, and with the Command Paper that direction of travel is set.

Jonathan Edwards: I welcome the statement. If a future UK Government were to diverge substantially from EU product regulations and standards for Great Britain, what would be the impact on what the Secretary of State has announced today?

Chris Heaton-Harris: First, we would be allowed to do that—100%. Secondly, there would be a written ministerial statement stating that exact fact so that Ministers and others in the Northern Ireland Assembly could debate and make provision for it.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement and the hard work he has done—I say that sincerely. Government actions until now have undermined some of the trust of Unionist people, so there is a clear need for messaging from the Government that the concerns that Unionists have been expressing for the last two years are being dealt with through secure legislative processes here and with the EU. My Strangford constituents—some of them are in the Gallery today—are proud of their Britishness. I am sure that the Secretary of State can confirm—I hope he can—that we in Northern Ireland are as British as those in London, Cardiff, Manchester and Newcastle, and, indeed, Edinburgh and Scotland as well.

Chris Heaton-Harris: And Daventry. I can confirm that 100%. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am very proud that he is a proud Brit, as I am.

Business of the House

Penny Mordaunt: With permission, I will make a short business statement about an addition to tomorrow’s business. Following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the business tomorrow will now be:
Thursday 1 February—a debate on motions to approve the draft Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 and the draft Windsor Framework (Internal Market and Unfettered Access) Regulations 2024, followed by a general debate on miners and mining communities, followed by debate on a motion on freedom and democracy in Iran. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
I will announce further business in the usual way on Thursday.

Lucy Powell: I thank the Leader of the House for the update to the business and for advance sight of her announcement.
As the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, we welcome the decision of the Democratic Unionist party to return to the Northern Ireland Executive following negotiations, subject to commitments by the Government and to legislation being passed. We also thank the other parties of Northern Ireland for their forbearance and co-operation.
This is a very important moment. We warmly welcome the progress so far, especially for the people of Northern Ireland, who have been without their Government for almost two years and for five of the past seven years. I welcome the publication of the Command Paper and the statutory instruments, and the fact that the business has changed tomorrow so that we can speedily consider these matters in the timetable set out, although I am sure other Members will want time to consider them. Could the Leader of the House let us know whether she anticipates that consequential legislation will be needed in due course, such as legislation to establish the internal lane?

Penny Mordaunt: Like the hon. Lady, I thank all parties who have been involved in getting us to what has been described as an historic moment. It is a good thing for the people of Northern Ireland that this is happening. I want to place on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved. I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming, understandably, the change of business tomorrow. With regard to her sole question, the answer is yes, and that is set out in the Command Paper.

Robin Millar: I thank the Leader of the House for making provision for a debate on the statutory instruments tomorrow. We have before us those two instruments, which address a wide range of issues: movement of goods in the UK, the internal market, and Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. Each of those has been subject to multiple lengthy debates in this House. Will she consider making time for two debates—one on each draft statutory instrument—thereby doubling the time that Members have to consider these matters in this House?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is right that there has been a tremendous amount of discussion of these issues on the Floor of the House. As the Secretary of State acknowledged earlier, the Standing Orders protect time for debate on statutory instruments to 90 minutes. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate on a particular topic, but the Standing Orders will protect the time tomorrow.

Deidre Brock: There is little to add to this short statement, as there will be more discussion on this latest legislation tomorrow. I want to state on the record that I welcome the progress that has been made, particularly as a former Northern Ireland spokesperson. Of course, there is much to be done, so I send my sincerest best wishes to all those in the Assembly who, hopefully soon, will step up to their places and their great responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her support in this matter, and I very much welcome her party’s support, too.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Just to be clear, we are presented with the United Kingdom’s internal market piece of legislation, a Northern Ireland constitutional law piece of legislation, and 80 pages of a Command Paper. With the best will in the world, we will get on to that around midday tomorrow. The maximum time possible is probably three hours for all that. That is insufficient time for the Front Benchers and all the Back Benchers with an interest in this matter to properly debate and scrutinise such legislation. Is there no opportunity to extend the proceedings to allow lengthier consideration of the legislation?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He knows what is set out in the Standing Orders. I appreciate where he is coming from, but I point him to the comments the Secretary of State made a moment ago about the external timetable that we need to keep pace with.

Jim Shannon: As always, I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), I am conscious that there will be quite a few speakers for the debates after that on miners and Iran and human rights issues. Given the time needed for the Northern Ireland legislation, and being ever mindful of how important it is to get it sorted, with no disrespect to the other two debates, is it humanly possible to have all the time between 12 noon and 5 pm for debates on the legislation that we need in Northern Ireland?

Penny Mordaunt: I say to the hon. Gentleman, “Welcome to my world.” We are trying to accommodate all parties. There was an additional Select Committee statement on tomorrow’s agenda, which we are talking to officials about to try accommodate tomorrow. I hope to update the House on that later.

Sammy Wilson: Is it not a fact that, now this Government have the Assembly on the fishing hook, they really do not care one iota about  scrutiny of the bait being used to get the Assembly back? Having introduced the Command Paper to the House today and having got a commitment to the Assembly, I suggest that this Government do not give two hoots about whether there is sufficient time to see whether the promises made will be fulfilled.

Penny Mordaunt: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he is wrong in that assertion. There will be many strong feelings on all sides of the House about various aspects of the position we have got to, but the comments made from all sides of the House during the Secretary of State’s statement indicate that this is an important step forward and is to be welcomed. Inevitably, it is a compromise; people have had to compromise to get here, and I applaud them for doing that. There will be future debate on these matters. My colleagues on the Front Bench will be very happy to answer any points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, is an example of conviction, passion and determination on the issues that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about.

Points of order

Richard Drax: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the start of Prime Minister’s questions, the Speaker reminded the House about the use of language. The debate on Gaza is getting far more emotive, and the language used has been questionable in one or two cases, as I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the SNP Members asked a question about Gaza and, after the question was answered, a member of the SNP—I cannot identify them—accused the Prime Minister of being Pontius Pilate, which we on these Benches heard very clearly. That kind of language is extremely unpleasant because, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Pontius Pilate washed his hands and handed Jesus over to a murderous death. That is not what the Prime Minister is doing. He has an impeccable record on this topic, and is leading with great courage and conviction in a war in Gaza that is, indeed, highly emotive.

Owen Thompson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just for the record, I seek your guidance on how to make it very clear that it was not a member of the SNP who said any such thing—I can be absolutely certain about that. I think Members might want to be very clear about which parties are saying things before making such accusations. How can I put that on the record, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will come to the other points of order in a moment. I appreciate the point of order made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I can say only this: Mr Speaker strives throughout Prime Minister’s questions to keep order in this House, but it has become fashionable to make unnecessary noise during the half hour when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are on the Front Benches. Generally, this House is well behaved, as it is at the moment, and takes its duties, responsibilities and public image seriously.
It is very sad if somebody did make the comment that the hon. Member for South Dorset has described. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) that if a remark was made about Pontius Pilate, it was not made by an SNP Member, but actually, as far as the Chair is concerned, I do not care who made such a remark. It is wrong to try to whip up bad feeling in this House or anywhere else about the tragedy unfolding in Israel and Palestine. I urge all hon. Members, who have different points of view on this emotive subject, to be very careful about what they say in public and in private, but especially in this Chamber.

Richard Drax: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to think I am an honourable Gentleman, and if indeed I got it wrong, I withdraw the point that the comment was made by an SNP Member. It came from that part of the House, but if it was not an SNP Member, I withdraw that point.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing that accusation, because it lets us at least take that part out of this specific issue. It may be that somebody made that comment, but I really  do not care what they said or how they said it. They should not be saying anything at all while seated when someone else is asking a question or the Prime Minister is answering it. Everyone in this House ought to bear in mind that what is said and done in here has a much wider audience, and we ought to be setting an example of being reasonable and careful in the way that we use words and phrases, and never being inflammatory.

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order also relates to Israel and Gaza. ITV News recently broadcast a video showing the killing of an unarmed civilian in Gaza who was waving a white flag—the international symbol of peace. It is not the first time unarmed people have been killed in Gaza while raising white flags; in fact, three Israeli hostages were brutally killed while topless and waving a white flag. This is deeply concerning to me, as I am sure it is to many people in this House. An Israel Defence Forces commander has indicated that the IDF was responsible, saying,
“There are mistakes, it is war.”
This incident could potentially constitute a war crime. How can we ensure that the Government come to this House to assure us that this incident will be properly investigated and that UK-supplied weapons were not used, and to set out the steps being taken to ensure that Israel follows the ruling from the International Court of Justice?

Eleanor Laing: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and the point she makes is not a point of order for the Chair—not at all. She is making a very serious point about a tragic incident among many thousands of tragic incidents that have occurred over the past few months, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
The hon. Lady is raising a point that she wants to raise with Ministers. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), was recently at the Dispatch Box making a statement on Gaza, and I anticipate it is very likely that a Foreign Office Minister or a Minister from the Ministry of Defence will be here again within a few days to make a further statement. If not, Opposition Front Benchers and others have been most assiduous in asking urgent questions to ensure that Ministers come to the House to answer these important questions.
The hon. Lady is not asking a question that I can deal with from the Chair; she is asking a question that she wants to ask of a Minister. If she wants to ask a question of a Minister, there are various ways she can do that: she can put down an urgent question; she can ask for an Adjournment debate; she can speak to Members on her own Front Bench about having an extended debate in Opposition time—I will not list them all. There are many, many ways in which the hon. Lady can do that, but I cannot answer her question from the Chair. It is not a point of order.

Patricia Gibson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have on two previous occasions asked the Leader of the House to correct the record after she told this House on 11 January that people in England pay
“lower tax than people in Scotland and we have managed…a balanced budget”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 455-456.]
At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister incorrectly referred to people in Scotland paying higher taxes than people in England. I have notified the Prime Minister that I would be referring to him. The House of Commons Library, via the Office for Budget Responsibility, has confirmed that the statements made by the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister are both untrue. The majority of people in Scotland pay lower taxes—including council tax—than people in England. No UK Government have delivered a balanced budget since 2000-2001, and the current UK Government pay the equivalent of £300 million a day in debt interest, while the Scottish Government must, by law, balance their budget every year.
Given that hon. Members must correct inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance and advice as to how to ensure that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister do indeed correct the record, and your advice as to what measures can be taken if hon. Members repeat factually incorrect information in this place and appear to—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I thank the hon. Lady. Once again, I appreciate that Members want to use the opportunity of a point of order to make the point that they want to make, but there is a big difference between—[Interruption.] Do not shout while I am speaking. There is a difference between a point of order on procedure in this House and a matter of opinion in the interpretation of statistics. There are also—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady just be quiet and allow me to answer her question?
There are inevitably differences of opinion on the interpretation of statistics. There are also, as the hon. Lady says, facts, as opposed to opinions. If facts are stated wrongly in this House, they should be corrected. However, it is not for the Chair to make a judgment as to who correctly interprets the facts put before the House. That is why we have debates and questions. We are not meant to come here and all agree with one another. That is why we have this Chamber, where proper debates can take place.
If the hon. Lady is saying that facts were stated wrongly, I am quite sure that a Minister will take the first opportunity to correct those facts. I think, perhaps, the Leader of the House will take that opportunity right now.

Penny Mordaunt: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be very happy to. This is obviously a matter of great concern and urgency to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—she would normally raise it at business questions tomorrow. I am quite sure this has nothing to do with the fact that the former First Minister is in front of the covid inquiry today. [Interruption.] There is nothing like a good old—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. What on earth do you think you are doing? The hon. Lady raised a point. The Leader of the House is answering an aspect of that point. It is not a moment when shouting should occur.

Penny Mordaunt: To get to the substance of the point, I understand that the hon. Lady mentions a House of Commons Library paper that she is relying  on to do this. That particular Library paper is using a figure from the Scottish Budget in 2022, which is out of date. As she will know, income tax out turns are not going to be reported for many more months, so she cannot make that assertion. What I have done in my responses at business questions to detailed points on taxation is to give the House direct salary levels and the taxes that people are paying north and south of the border. Whatever our views and political disagreements, I take my responsibilities to this House extremely seriously.

Eleanor Laing: Let me make it clear once again that there is a difference between points of order on procedure and matters for debate. That is why we have debates. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran will raise her points in debate on many occasions over the next few weeks, as indeed will the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who made the previous point of order. That is what debates are for and it is not for the Chair to make those decisions.

Police (Declaration)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Tonia Antoniazzi: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require police officers and certain employees of police forces to declare a membership of or affiliation to certain types of society and organisation; to require such declarations to be accompanied by a statement relating to that membership; and for connected purposes.
Secret, closed or private societies have often been the subject of ridicule. From “Monty Python” to “The Simpsons”, these organisations have been seen as silly, strange and perhaps old fashioned, and even today we hear reference to the funny handshake club. However, look beyond the parodies and we find networks of those with power and authority: clubs of like-minded individuals that look out for their own. We know that these networks exist in areas of public life.
Here in the UK, our policing model relies on public trust and consent. At the heart of the Peelian principles of policing is the idea that public consent is maintained by applying the law fairly and impartially. The College of Policing’s code of ethics states that to demonstrate that they are applying the law fairly, police forces should operate with transparency. The Casey report into culture at the Metropolitan police states:
“The checks and balances provided by robust scrutiny, governance and accountability are vital for public bodies, perhaps especially the police with their duties towards and powers over the public.”
The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s 2023 report into public perceptions of the police identified “increased transparency” as a key measure the police could take to improve confidence in policing.
With those words in mind, I am seeking to bring forward a Bill that, at its heart, provides more transparency to the public. The outcome of the Bill would be to have a public register of associations for all officers and civilians working for the police. That is not a particularly new idea in this House. In 1997, the Home Affairs Committee published its report, “Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary”, which concluded:
“We recommend that police officers, magistrates, judges and crown prosecutors should be required to register membership of any secret society and that the record should be publicly available.”
In February 1998, the Home Office accepted that recommendation, stating that all new appointments shall have as a condition of appointment a requirement to declare membership of the Freemasons. The influence of freemasonry on the police has often been discussed over the decades. Suggestions of influence in high profile cases of police corruption and mismanagement have been shot down due to a lack of evidence. I am not here to throw accusations, but the continuous mention of freemasonry raises many eyebrows, even in this House.
I have used freemasonry as an example, but the Bill does not only apply to that particular society. After all, old boys’ clubs have always existed within the police, and they can take many shapes. The Casey report into the culture at the Metropolitan police highlighted the use of WhatsApp groups; closed groups of like-minded individuals looking out for their own—sound familiar? Policing culture has, rightly, been under heavy scrutiny in recent years. Allegations of misogyny, racism and homophobia have stuck in the public conscience, alongside claims of corruption and collusion.
The Government, along with policing bodies, have committed to reform, and a number of inquiries and reviews have taken place. If we are serious about reforming police culture, and I think we should be, then we must leave no stone unturned. The Bill serves to act as one of those many stones in need of turning. I must stress that the Bill is not seeking to prevent membership to societies—not at all—and I am acutely aware of the right to association, and previous precedent that has been set for that in the European convention on human rights.
We in this House work cross-party. The issue is a policing one, not a party political one. I thank my colleagues who have sponsored the Bill, who come from three different parties. I have spoken to so many people about this issue. It is a conversation I enjoy having, because they believe, as I do, that something needs to be done, but many do not dare to speak out. So, I am here, speaking out once again about reforming culture within an organisation. I know the change that can be made when people speak up, having previously set my attention on the Welsh Rugby Union, which has been well documented. I believe we in this House can make that important change happen within the police, too. The Police Regulations 2003 state:
“No restrictions other than those designed to secure the proper exercise of the functions of a constable shall be imposed by the police authority or the chief officer on the private life of members of a police force”.
Schedule 1, paragraph 1 states:
“A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere”.
I believe that a balance needs to be struck between those two statements, in a way that is still in line with both of them. In 2016, the police and crime commissioner for South Wales told “Y Byd ar Bedwar”, a Welsh TV news programme, for those who do not know:
“If members of a club or society have to disclose, it takes away any hidden agendas…it would be best to have one common system for local authorities, police force and health boards. Only then can we ensure everybody is being treated equally.”
For 20 years, I was a teacher, subject to a Disclosure and Barring Service check but not a register of interests, as I am now as an MP. I feel very strongly about the significance and role of culture within organisations,  particularly in public services. All organisations have a responsibility to change their culture for the better, by being honest and transparent about matters relating to governance and day-to-day operations.
Of course, some might argue that if such declarations should be made in police forces, they should also be made by Members of Parliament given that we are lawmakers, and to them I say, “Why not?” At its inception, Members of the Welsh Assembly, as it was then, were required to declare if they were Freemasons, and faced criminal charges if they were found to be members and had not declared their membership. When advised that that might conflict with human rights laws, the Assembly looked at its policy again. Now Members of the Senedd are required to make declarations of membership of any society or organisation, which seems an extremely sensible approach.
Being part of a society can be inherently positive in enhancing friendship, fostering new connections and promoting fundraising, but if there is a potential for membership of a group or society to be used in protecting individuals from consequences and in hiding the truth, that must be addressed. Restoring trust in the police is a monumental task, and I am under no illusion that the Bill is a magic wand, but transparency is essential to that task. It is in our power as lawmakers to make changes happen—changes that allow for trust in the police to grow. In its 1998 report “Freemasonry in Public Life’, the Home Affairs Committee concluded:
“The solution is a simple one. It requires no bans or proscriptions, which generally have no place in a democratic society. It merely requires public servants who are members of a secret society—or ‘a society with secrets’ as freemasons used to say—to disclose their membership.”
Now is the time to move beyond secrecy.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That Tonia Antoniazzi, Sarah Champion, Neil Coyle, Dame Diana Johnson, Ben Lake, Caroline Nokes, Jess Phillips, Liz Saville Roberts and Mr William Wragg present the Bill.
Tonia Antoniazzi accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time Friday 1 March and to be printed (Bill 156).

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

[Relevant documents: Third Report of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission of 2023, Response to the draft Strategy and Policy Statement for the Electoral Commission, HC 1809; and Third Report of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission of 2022, Response to the draft Strategy and Policy Statement for the Electoral Commission, HC 967]

Simon Hoare: I beg to move,
That the draft Electoral Commission Strategy and Policy Statement, which was laid before this House on 14 December 2023, be approved.
It is a pleasure to be able to present this important strategy and policy statement for parliamentary consideration this afternoon. We may disagree on many points, but one point on which I hope we can agree is that there are plenty of issues in our political life to raise the blood pressure. Let me say respectfully to the House that this strategy and policy statement is not one of them, for reasons that I shall set out.
The Electoral Commission Strategy and Policy Statement was laid before Parliament on 14 December 2023 for approval by resolution of both Houses within a 40-day period in accordance with section 4C(9)(a) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Let me start by asserting clearly and unequivocally a concern which I know many right hon. and hon. Members have had, and which I wish to nail from the outset. This statement, this strategy, in no way undermines or challenges the robust, legislatively underpinned independence of the Electoral Commission. The commission plays an important part in our national life. It has a key and important role, and the House and, I believe, the country recognise that.
The statement gives the Government no new teeth or power. How, if and when the commission faces into the guidance is up to it and the scrutiny of Mr Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, whose role is exercised on behalf of the House. The commission, as is set out in the 2000 Act, only has a “duty to have regard”. We are not saying—not least because we cannot, and do not wish to—that the commission “will” or “must”. We create no new duty to report to the Government, only a duty for the Speaker’s Committee to maintain its relations with the commission. The commission will continue to report only to Parliament, as it has done since its creation in 2000. The statement—I want to make this very clear, because this is a twin approach of independence—does not politicise Mr Speaker’s Committee or the Office of the Speaker in respect of its commission functions.

Clive Betts: I have been listening to what the Minister is saying with a bit of disbelief. If the commission will not have to take any notice of the statement or act on it, but need only have regard to it, what is it here for? If “having regard to” means “taking seriously and doing something about”, that applies both to the commission and to Mr Speaker’s Committee, which has to oversee the commission and  its work. Does that not compromise the neutrality and independence of Mr Speaker as well as the Electoral Commission? This is a very serious matter.

Simon Hoare: If that were true, it would be a serious matter, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have huge respect, and who chairs the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee with much distinction—that I do not see it that way, and neither do the Government. However, he takes me from my explanation of what the statement is not, to explaining why we are approving it. That is the nub of this issue. We see—I see—the role of this Government and of any party that has the honour to be in government in the United Kingdom as that of a pro tem custodian of our democracy. That is why we have election law, and why I am the elections Minister. Democracy is, as we discussed last week in the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, a fragile flower under huge pressure.
We believe that the statement is timely, not least because of the raft of changes that have flown through and been delivered by statutory instrument from the recent Elections Act 2022. We are also hugely cognisant of the threats to the robustness and resilience of our democracy presented by overseas interference, fake news, deepfakes, and artificial intelligence. The solemn role of pro tem custodian, and holding the flame of democracy while we serve in government, are important.

John Martin McDonnell: rose—

Simon Hoare: It is important to underpin, rather than undermine, the work of the commission by standing shoulder to shoulder with it in the important work that has been set before it, which I will come to when I have taken the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

John Martin McDonnell: I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we warned in our report about the threat to the independence of the commission from the Government’s legislation regarding the strategy statement. I can understand where the Minister is coming from when he says that we are not using the expression “must” because that would be a direction, but the Government are repeatedly using the expression “should”. The question in my mind is: if the commission ignores this “should”, what happens? There is an implied threat around the “should”.

Simon Hoare: The right hon. Gentleman helpfully takes me to the next part of my remarks about “should”, “would” and “must”. Let us just canter through, with some degree of attention and seriousness, the priorities set out in the statement. In all seriousness—I hope the House knows me well enough to know that when I use that phrase it is not just parroting a line; I am serious in what I am about to say, because it is important—I really would question whether any hon. or right hon. Member of this House, of any party, would take exception to anything in the statement.

John Martin McDonnell: Will the Minister answer my question?

Simon Hoare: If the right hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, he will have his question answered. He asks his question in his way and, in the words of Frank Sinatra, I shall answer it in mine.
The first paragraph rehearses this key point:
“The Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for giving guidance and support to Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers in undertaking electoral registration and conducting elections and recall petitions effectively and in accordance with the law.”
Anybody disagree with that? No. Paragraph 2 states:
“The Chair of the Commission has the responsibility in law for acting as the Chief Counting Officer at national referendums in the UK…and the staff of the Commission support the Chair in that role, when it is required, to work through local electoral authorities to deliver such events.”
The delivery of smooth and seamless referenda is  not, I would suggest, a revolutionary power grab by His Majesty’s Government.
Paragraph 3 states:
“The government believes the Electoral Commission has an important role to play in maintaining the integrity of our elections and public confidence in that integrity.”
I do not think that point will get the Division bells ringing. In answer to the question from the Chair of the Select Committee, paragraph 3 continues:
“The duty to have regard does not require the Commission to give lesser priority to, or to ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The Electoral Commissioners and the Commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the Commission’s strategy, priorities, how it should discharge its duties (including day-to-day operations) and the allocation of its resources, as agreed by the relevant parliaments. It will be for the Commission to determine how to factor the Statement into its decision-making processes and corporate documents such as the Five-Year Plan.”
Paragraph 4 states:
“One of the government’s policy priorities is ensuring our democracy is secure, fair, modern and transparent.”
One could easily transpose the word “government” for “Parliament” there. Who will argue with ensuring that our democracy is secure? Who will argue that our democracy should not be fair, modern, or transparent? Paragraph 4 goes on to say that it is a priority to ensure
“that those who are entitled to vote should always be able to exercise that right freely, securely and in an informed way;…that fraud, intimidation and interference have no place in our democracy;…that we are the stewards of our shared democratic heritage which we keep up to date for our age.”
That is my custodian point again.
Paragraph 5 states:
“One of the leading government objectives is tackling electoral fraud”.
Anyone in this House in favour of electoral fraud? I did not think so—and rightly so. Paragraph 5 goes on to state that the commission should
“support continued effective delivery of voter identification by raising public awareness about the requirement to show an approved form of photographic identification before taking part in UK parliamentary elections, local elections in England and elections in Northern Ireland”.
It has done that in Northern Ireland for the last 20 years or so. This issue was raised in close questioning from the Lords Constitution Committee just the other month. The important role of the Government, the commission and other agencies in raising the profile and public awareness of voter identification was a matter that we discussed at some length.

Clive Betts: I am listening to the Minister reading out a list of the things that the commission is obliged to do by law anyway, so why he has to restate them in this paper,  I do not know. The clear advice to the Committee and to the Speaker’s Committee was that if certain items were identified as priorities for the commission, other things would per se be of lesser priority. For example, overseas voter registration is a priority, but the registration of voters in this country, where 8 million people are not on the register, is not listed as a priority. This skews the work of the Electoral Commission, whether the Minister likes it or not.

Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman was obviously so busy trying to find his rebuttal point that he did not listen to my answer to the first question. I set out clearly that the duty to “have regard” does not require the commission to give lesser priority to, or ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The electoral commissioners and the commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the commission’s strategy and priorities, and how it should discharge its duties. The statement in no way undermines, countermands or double-guesses any work of the commission.
The paper goes on to talk about tackling electoral fraud, which I know we would all wish to do. Crucially, it also talks about the role of the commission in working with returning officers and others to ensure the maximum opportunity for those with disabilities to take part in the ballot on the day and in polling stations. Nobody in this place, or the other place, would think that was not a noble aim.

John Martin McDonnell: rose—

Simon Hoare: And at the very mention of noble aims, I give way to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

John Martin McDonnell: I come back to the fact that this statement in effect sets priorities for the commission, and that has not only operational consequences but budgetary consequences. What are the consequences for the commission if, like me, it thinks the Government’s statement is daft and completely ignores it?

Simon Hoare: I just do not see that happening, because the commission understands the importance of the statement. It is not a directional document; it is an augmenting document. It says—because there are difficult things facing our democracy, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—that the Government, not a party Government but Government as an entity, are in lockstep with the commission, in full support of the work that it does to preserve, protect and enhance our democracy. We felt that it was timely for the Secretary of State to provide a statement to augment and clarify matters that flow from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Act and subsequent statutory instruments.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is right to say that the commission is, in any case, doing the things set out in the statement, in whole or in part. It will be entirely up to the commission to set its priorities from the list, and to give greater or lesser attention to matters as needed. For example, it could say, “Well, that has already been done, and this is all in hand, but we really need to augment this matter here.” The voter authority certificate is a prime example. There are things that we would all expect the commission to spend a certain amount of time on, in order to raise awareness of them.

Patrick Grady: The Minister is doing a commendable job, given that he has clearly inherited a piece of legislation from a different era that was part of a different agenda. He said that things might need clarifying, and then mentioned the voter authority certificate. Can he give us examples of other things that need clarifying? What does he think the Electoral Commission is doing that is wrong, and that needs to be righted by this statement?

Simon Hoare: Nothing. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for that, then he has completely misunderstood the purpose of the statement and the operational independence of the Electoral Commission, and apportioned malign intentions to the Government. I know that he wants to say, “Oh, this is mission creep because that is something else, and the Government are trying to take over an independent body”—it is nothing of the sort.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that others wish to speak. They can read the statement for themselves, but I hope that the examples I have given indicate that the strategy and policy statement augment what the Electoral Commission does. My Department and I have good relations with the commission. We never seek to direct. We admire and respect the work that the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission does in discharging its duty. I have the honour of being a member of that Committee, as do the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East; the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins); the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith); and others—so it is not even weighted in His Majesty’s Government’s favour.

Cat Smith: rose—

Simon Hoare: This is a benign statement, supporting the commission in its work, addressing the changes introduced post the Elections Act 2022 (Commencement No. 7) Regulations 2023. It is all part of our process to ensure that our electoral system is resilient, open, transparent, secure and has the maximum access to all who have the eligibility to cast a vote on whichever election day it may happen to be. How they vote is entirely up to them; how the commission sets its priorities is entirely up to it. Mr Speaker and his Committee will hold the commission to account, not Parliament. There is no mandate in the statement that the commission has to provide a statement or report, annually or quarterly, to my Department or to the Secretary of State. The usual communication channels between the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Commission remain.
Given the fragility of our democracy and the outside pressures facing most western democracies today, I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that, in trying to ascribe ill intention, Machiavellian motivation and some sort of surreptitious purpose of undermining democracy to this benign statement of good will, they demean themselves and they demean and weaken democracy.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for his introduction. I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but I struggled to listen to him. Through gritted teeth, he tried but failed desperately to justify why this statement is needed. You cannot flog a dead horse, and if something ain’t broke, it doesn’t need to be fixed.
In 2000, the previous Labour Government set up the Electoral Commission to act as a guardian of our democratic system. At the heart of that decision was the need for a central pillar of independence within our politics: a body that the public could trust that would not suffer interference, not just from the Government of the day but from future Governments of any shade; that would not fear the consequences of taking on major parties when they broke the rules; and that could provide information about our system from a trusted sources, free of political interference. Over 20 years later, the commission’s independence has become a cornerstone of public trust in our democracy.
Let me put the strategy and policy statement into context. Sadly, 14 years of Tory failure have left many people feeling powerless at the decline under this Government. People have seen their hard-earned money go to Tory friends and VIP donors. People who followed the rules to protect the NHS saw those who made the rules breaking them. I grew up not far from this place, on a council estate in Brixton, just a bus ride away. What annoyed and angered me was seeing decisions being made about my community by people who did not feel the ramifications. The Government need to reflect on that—I hope the Minister will—and realise why trust in our politics is at a record low after so many scandals from this place. During this time, the independence of the Electoral Commission has acted as a bedrock in our system against declining trust. While we have seen recent drops in confidence and satisfaction in the system, a majority of people remain satisfied with the voting process.
I agree with the Minister that there are always things we can do to improve our democratic process, but this statement is setting a political agenda for an independent watchdog. That is completely wrong, Minister, and you know it, and that is not just me saying that.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but I beg of her, would she please call the Minister “the Minister”, not “you”? I am not blaming the hon. Lady; bad examples have been set by senior Members of the House calling other Members “you” or “Minister”. Phrases such as “and you know it” are exactly why we do not have that way of doing things here, because that refers to the occupant of the Chair. I apologise for pulling her up on this, because she is far from being the first person to get it wrong, but if we do not start to put it right, people will not understand the reason for the rule.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you for highlighting that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I totally agree with you; I will refer to “the Minister”.
It not only me saying that there are issues with the statement; The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities  Committee, and even the Electoral Commission itself, have all highlighted problems with the statement. These are not random bodies. In fact, they are so respected that the Government themselves made it mandatory to consult them prior to bringing the strategy and policy statement to the House. Yet when all three raised the same concerns, the Government simply railroaded the statement through. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would expect a Government who disregard the powerful points made by these respected bodies to have a clear evidence base for their actions. For the Minister to repeat what the Electoral Commission is doing fantastically well is not the basis for the statement.
In announcing the statement, the Government said:
“This guidance addresses the concern raised in Lord Eric Pickles’ independent review into electoral fraud, that the current system of oversight of the Electoral Commission is not fit for purpose.”
Given that, we would expect to find a robust justification for this statement in what the Minister outlined. However, all we get on the system for oversight is three buried lines on page 50 of that seven-year-old report—no detail, justification or evidence. Wow.
When the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee found it was
“not aware that any of those concerns remain current”
from the relevant section of the Pickles report, and when so many respected bodies are saying the statement is unnecessary, surely the Minister must see that the very basis for making the statement is simply not good enough.
Under this Government, trust in our politics and democratic institutions is at an all-time low. We all need to work hard to restore that trust, give people belief that their voice matters and that decisions are made with them, not to them—this is another example of decisions being made to them. Instead, the contents of the statement completely undermine the Electoral Commission, representing a dangerous threat to the independence of a vital watchdog. MPs from all parties have condemned it and respected bodies have rejected it, which is further proof that we need a new approach to a democracy that works for everyone. I urge hon. Members to join us in voting against this dangerous politicisation of our independent elections watchdog.

Chloe Smith: I rise to make a short contribution to the debate. I welcome the work that has been done on the policy statement. Having read the examination undertaken by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the report by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, I am glad the Government have responded to elements of the critique. I also acknowledge the incredibly important role that Mr Speaker and his Committee play in the existing governance of the Electoral Commission— I want to make sure that is on the record, because they do their job well.
For me, and I suspect other colleagues who supported the Elections Act 2022—the source of today’s instrument— there are a couple of additional arguments that should be put alongside what the Minister has said. First, it is reasonable to have a strategy and policy statement. Other regulators, such as Ofcom and Ofgem, have one. Secondly, this debate is an opportunity for the whole  Chamber to engage in the Electoral Commission’s work. I rather wish that the Chamber was even fuller. Be that as it may, this is rightly an opportunity for more right hon. and hon. Members, other than those who sit on the Speaker’s Committee or on the Select Committee, to take part.

Clive Betts: rose—

Chloe Smith: I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

Clive Betts: Does the hon. Lady not accept that comparing this with other regulators is profoundly confusing? They are different. Regulating the water industry, with the Government quite rightly having a view about how our water purity, sewerage and so on should be controlled, is completely different from the Government interfering in how an independent Electoral Commission should carry out its operations.

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. Let me say in a respectful tone of voice that I am glad to see the depth of work that he has done on this, but I hope that he recognises that there are many of us on the Conservative Benches who have also spent very many years focusing on this area. My answer to him would be that there are partial similarities and there are partial differences. I think that he is wrong and that some of his colleagues are unwise to throw quite so many accusations in such a tone today. In part, there are good reasons why it is reasonable to set out in one place the Government’s priorities, which, as the statement sets out, are adjacent and relevant to matters to do with the regulators. That is what today’s document does. He is right that that is somewhat different from the more detailed work that is done by the regulators of water and electricity and so on. He is also right, of course, to point to the essential independence of the Electoral Commission. I am glad that he has done so, because  it gives me the opportunity to add my emphasis to that  as well.
There is nothing to be concerned about from this statement in respect of the independence of the commission. We have heard those assurances from the Minister today. It is extremely important that he has set that out, and I am glad that he has done so, and I add my voice to the essential nature of that. But I want briefly to go back to the need for wider participation in the work  of the Electoral Commission. We are able to spend, periodically, a few minutes of question time on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and good work is done through that mechanism, but it is perhaps somewhat indirect. It is important for the whole Chamber to be able to look at the important issues that sit behind our constitution and our electoral system.
I wish to move on to the contents of the strategy and policy statement. I am working in particular from the points that we see in paragraph 19, where it is emphasised that this regulator needs to work together with others to discharge its duties. I want to emphasise that in the context of the demands being made on regulators this year with regard to artificial intelligence. Members will be very well aware of that from the White Paper on regulating artificial intelligence, which was set out last year, and on which we are shortly to have an update from a different Department.
The key point is this: it is the world’s biggest election year. Billions of citizens will be going to the ballot box, including here. These elections will be the first to happen since the significant advances in AI. There are legitimate concerns, anxieties and, indeed, evidence from our security services, for us to ask whether this technology will be used for fabrication, for manipulation and to affect the integrity of elections. It goes without saying that the integrity of elections matters, so that people’s free choice achieves what they intend.
The Government have asked regulators across their fields to set out how they will work with artificial intelligence. Clearly, the Electoral Commission is one of those regulators—and somewhat in the hotseat in this regard. It is my view that, in respect of the grand concerns and anxieties, the Electoral Commission and connected enforcement agencies could helpfully set out the preparation that they have done and give reassurance publicly about their readiness for elections this year. With reference to the substance of today’s statement, I ask the Minister what discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on its work with other regulators, for example as per paragraphs 19 and 20 of the statement, which talk about keeping up to date with the realities of campaigning activities—I think that is a good tone to take there. I also ask the Minister in what way he expects to keep the statement itself and future iterations of the statements updated in regards to technology and national security considerations where those might be relevant.
I agree with the Minister that we here are stewards of our democracy. I have been in his particular position before. I set out the approach that we ought always to strive for our elections to be secure, fair, modern, accessible and transparent. I also agree that this is some of the most important work that we can do. None the less, I conclude by saying gently that it is a legitimate function of Government to address themselves to these principles. That is what we need the Government and Parliament to do, because we are the custodians of law as well as of those principles. We did that with the Elections Act, and we did it prior to that with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We have also done it before then and since then, and we will continue to do so.
It is a legitimate function of Government to enact changes and updates to electoral law when they are asked to do so, perhaps through a manifesto commitment in a democratic process. We do that through Parliament, so it is good, as I have said, that we have this wider opportunity for Parliament to be able to engage in the work of the Electoral Commission while crucially respecting its design and independence, and I am glad that we are getting that chance to do so today.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Patrick Grady: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), not least because she was the Minister who brought in the Elections Act 2022, which has given rise to the motion today. The Minister on the Front Bench today, whom I hold in the highest regard, is  either the fifth or the sixth Minister—I have lost count—from the second Government Department who has had responsibility for manifestations of that legislation, whether it was the Bill proceedings or delegated legislation, since its First Reading in 2021. That does not say much for the continuity of this Government or their commitment to getting right the regulation of elections—that perhaps is hardly a surprise. In fact, as I have alluded to, much of the statement and much of what we are doing today is a hangover from a slightly different era—a more muscular era—of the Conservative Government.
That is a pity because, on the one hand, the Elections Act was a massive missed opportunity to consolidate and update electoral law properly for the next quarter of the 21st century, and on the other, it provided for significant regression in the access to, and potential fairness of, UK-wide elections and certain other elections in England and Wales. It removed proportionality from mayoral elections and it imposed the burden of photo-identification, particularly on poorer and marginalised communities, while at the same time extending the franchise to millions of voters from overseas who have much less in the way of verification. And now, on the Floor of the House today, we have the cherry on top, the crowning glory of this Government’s interventions on our election process: the strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.
The commission is supposed to be the independent regulator of elections across these islands. It is a body that already has extremely clear functions, which are set out on a statutory basis in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. My first question to the Minister is this: what is this statement? Is it the law? Is it a statutory instrument? Is it delegated legislation? It is telling that the Government have tabled a debate in the Chamber rather than passing this to a DL Committee, because I have a feeling that that was their original intention and that the Minister would have preferred that given the scrutiny and publicity he is now facing, but here we are in the Chamber—and I am not entirely sure if a motion to approve a strategy and policy statement is delegated legislation.
It seems that the commission is not legally bound to follow the strategy and policy, but only to “have regard” to it. As others have asked, what does that mean? What happens if the commission finds itself conflicted between the statement and the statute? Can it be challenged in the courts, and if so, by whom—by political parties, by non-party campaigners, by the Government themselves? If it is not the law, how is it to be enforced—who decides if the commission is compliant or not?
I know the Minister, and you Madam Deputy Speaker, enjoy some deftly deployed Latin so perhaps this is a good time to ask the classical question, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers—or, in this case, who commissions the commissioners? The answer to that question is that it is this House: it is Parliament that recommends commissioners for appointment by the monarch by means of a Humble Address. It was Parliament that established the commission in the first place through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The commission is accountable to the Speaker’s Committee of Members of this House and through other mechanisms to the Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We can therefore look at this statement and the motion before us and ask whether the Government are usurping the sovereignty of this House. The motion is unamendable, much as some of us would have liked to amend it to mandate the Government to abandon the statement and repeal the relevant section of the Elections Act 2022, and the statement is unamendable. The Government ran a limited consultation—limited in time and limited in the number of consultees. Where is the parliamentary sovereignty in that?
The only way in which the Scottish Government were able to express their views was in a letter from my good friend the Minister for Parliamentary Business, George Adam MSP, to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee of this House. That is probably a fair reflection of what this Government think is the place of Scotland’s Parliament and Government in the modern United Kingdom—as a subsidiary of the housing Committee of the House of Commons. The statement does not have any effect on the Electoral Commission’s functions in the devolved nations, but by definition that increases divergence of practice, which is perhaps a surprise given the UK Government’s determination to promote the broad shoulders of the Union.
In his letter, Minister Adam makes clear that, like almost every other stakeholder—and every other voice we have heard with the exception of those on the Government Benches who have taken an interest in this matter—he considers the strategy and policy statement to be
“an unwelcome and unnecessary interference with the independence of the Electoral Commission”.
He makes the extremely valid point that the statement’s preamble says that it
“does not suggest that the Commission should cease to carry out any of its other statutory duties”.
He also rightly suggests:
“This appears to raise the alarming prospect that such a suggestion might feature in future versions of the SPS.”
Surely a change in the functions of the commission would require a change in the statute.
It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response to those points in getting to the heart of what this statement is or is not supposed to achieve. If it is largely a restatement of the principles and functions that the commission is already carrying out, as the Minister sought to assure us in his most emollient tones, it seems to be surplus to requirements. Perhaps the Minister could give us some examples of what, as a result of the statement, he thinks the commission will do differently, or better. If the statement is simply changing the emphasis on certain functions, that goes back to the point I raised in my intervention: why is that necessary? What does the Minister think the commission is doing wrong and why do the Government need to direct what is supposed to be an independent regulator?
The Elections Act 2022 was of course just one step in a pernicious series that this Government in their different incarnations have taken to shield themselves from accountability and to reduce the openness and transparency of democracy across the UK. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 restored the prerogative of calling an election to the Prime Minister alone—with all the consequences that is having for the Tory Back Benchers, the Press Gallery and the podcast studios of  Westminster. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2020 has restricted the right to protest. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and sundry other pieces of Brexit legislation have ridden roughshod over the Sewel convention and deliberately weakened and undermined the devolution settlement.
Perhaps it should be no surprise, therefore, that the Government have the independent regulator of elections next in their sights. The Conservative party is clearly not going to have an easy time at the next election, and it has clearly decided that therefore neither should anybody else—whether they are a candidate, a political party, a non-party campaigner, an electoral registration officer, a returning officer or some other official, or indeed the Electoral Commission itself.
The time to introduce elections legislation reform is usually at the beginning of a Parliament, so that everyone involved has time to prepare and implement the changes, not at the desperate fag-end of a Session as part of what appears to be a scorched earth policy by the current Government. That does mean that there are some serious questions for the official Opposition as well, and indeed for all of us writing our manifestos. Are the official Opposition prepared to repeal or amend aspects of the Elections Act should they have the opportunity to do so at some point in future? Will they commit to getting rid of this statement and certainly to not publishing any of their own?
In the meantime, the Government need to hear from the House that this statement is at best unnecessary and at worst—which is more likely—an undermining of the independence of the Electoral Commission and indeed its accountability to this House rather than to the Government of the day. Members on the Government Benches—wherever they are; they are clearly not that interested in this motion—who believe far more fervently in parliamentary sovereignty than those of us who believe in popular sovereignty believe in that, should consider whether this is really the road they want to go down. If they do not want to go down this road, they should join those of us who respect the independence of the Electoral Commission, and who want to see fairness and transparency across elections on these islands, in voting against this statement—or whatever it is.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: This debate has to finish at 4.13 pm. I ask colleagues to be aware of that. There are five more speakers and a little brevity might help.

Clive Betts: I am speaking today as Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I also declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
When the Minister was given responsibility for local government finance, he no doubt thought that he had got the hospital pass, which some Ministers get from time to time when they have a very challenging brief and a very difficult situation to face. Then he realised that that hospital pass was coming down the road straight away, and that he was going to have to try to justify this statement today. He did a good job of telling  us what the current responsibilities are of the Electoral Commission; what he did not do was give us one example of something that the commission is not doing right at present which they will be made to do right and better by this statement. What are the problems that need addressing, and if the motion passes in this House, what will be different tomorrow from today? He did not give one example of that. That is why in the end both the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and the Speaker’s Committee said that, at worst, this statement process compromises the independence of the Electoral Commission—the commission believes that as well—and at best, it is simply unnecessary and will contribute nothing whatsoever.
I say to the Minister—and he has made this point—that democracy is of course very precious and it is the responsibility of all of us to protect it. The Electoral Commission is a very important part of that process in its oversight of elections and the electoral processes in this country, so it must be seen to be independent—not just independent in practice but perceived to be independent. Despite what the Minister said in the very detailed way he addressed the statement, the perception is that the Government are trying to do something to influence the Electoral Commission. If they are not, what is the point of this? If they have no intention of influencing the Electoral Commission, we should just let it get on with the current situation and be accountable to Mr Speaker’s Committee—that is surely where we ought to be.
The Speaker’s Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee had very helpful advice from senior and authoritative officers in this House who concluded in reporting to our Committees that the statement would constitute interference with the commission’s operational independence. That is what we were advised; we were advised that no cogent explanation had been put forward for why the statement was needed. We have not heard one today either; the Minister did the best job he could, but it was not a coherent and cogent explanation. Further, we were told that it was hard to see how this statement would help the commission in its work.
The statement says that the commission should have regard to the way in which it operates, and gives it certain priorities. If among the commission’s many responsibilities some have to be a priority, others must be of a lower priority—that is pretty self-evident as a conclusion.
Those other things are less important. Either that directs the commission to concentrate its resources on the things that the Government think are important, or the commission will just ignore it and walk away; either way, we do not know what we are here for. Either we are here to interfere with the work of the commission, direct it and give it priorities, or we are simply here to say to the commission, “There are some things that the Government think are rather nice, but go away and ignore them because they don’t really matter. That’s not your statutory responsibility.”
Ultimately, the commission has statutory responsibilities. We were advised on the Committee that some of the wording in the statement differs from the wording in law, so the commission could be caught between following the law and following the guidance. It would end up in  court, with lawyers making a lot of money from the conflicts—lawyers always make money where there is confusion in wording. The Government ought to be careful about what they are asking us to do.
Reference was made to other regulators. Other regulators are essentially agents of Government: for example, Ofwat exists to carry out Government policy about how our water should be kept clean. The Electoral Commission is not an agent of Government. It is therefore very different from the other regulators—the agents—that the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and Ministers have referred to.

John Martin McDonnell: It goes back to the question that I put to the Minister. If other regulators fail to abide by the direction given by Government, they are removed. We have not heard what the consequences will be from the Government of not abiding by the range of “shoulds” within the statement.

Clive Betts: Absolutely. No consequences are laid out for what will happen if the statement is not followed by the Electoral Commission.

Richard Foord: I wonder whether it is worse than that. Regulators should be removed if they are found to be incompetent. Given the state of the water industry with Ofwat and the Environment Agency, the Government probably ought to be stepping in and removing those regulators, but they are not.

Clive Betts: Yes, perhaps the Government ought to pay more attention to those problems rather than to one that seems not to exist. The Minister has not told us what problems the statement is intended to address.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Clive Betts: I think the Minister is going to help us with that.

Simon Hoare: I politely ask the Chair of the Select Committee where in my remarks opening the debate I talked about other regulatory bodies and tried to rank them pari passu with the Electoral Commission. I will tell him where I did it: I did not.

Clive Betts: The Minister’s right hon. friend the Member for Norwich North raised it, and she was the Minister who took the Bill through Parliament, so it is worth taking seriously what she had to say.
The Minister did not tell us what problems the statement is meant to address. It would be helpful if he did so. [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Clive Betts: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to encourage the Minister to be helpful to us. Obviously I am struggling in that regard.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Clive Betts: Is the Minister now going to be helpful?

Simon Hoare: I am trying to be helpful. Read Hansard. I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question three times. If he neither understands nor can hear the answer, that is not my fault.

Clive Betts: The Minister is clearly trying to be helpful but not succeeding.
In the end, it comes back to the point that the Electoral Commission’s priorities do not have to be the Government’s priorities, and the Government have no right to direct the commission in its work. Again I ask: what problem is the motion designed to address? If the Minister cannot articulate what the problem is and how the statement will change the behaviour of the Electoral Commission, frankly every Member of this House is busy and has lots of things to do. Have we just wasted 90 minutes of our time, because in two years we will come back and find that today’s motion had no impact? I rather hope that that is the case, because the other scenario would be that the Government are interfering in the Electoral Commission’s work, which is the worse of the two ways of looking at this.

Cat Smith: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I associate myself with everything he said, which allows me to cut short my speech; I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
When preparing for the debate, I took a little time to learn what the public think of the Electoral Commission. Some research was carried out, and the words most frequently used by voters to describe the commission were “independent”, “important” and “professional”. At a time in our politics when fake news, misinformation and artificial intelligence are seen as threats, and frankly are threats, to the security of our democracy—indeed, during Prime Minister’s questions earlier we had Members spreading fake news about vaccines and things—should it not be a source of great pride for our country that the Electoral Commission is held in such high regard by voters, who rely on it to safeguard the independence of elections and of democracy itself?
Fairness and accountability in electoral regulation depend on a strong and independent regulator, which is what the Electoral Commission is. It fulfils the vital role of overseeing our elections and regulating political finance in the UK. The commission’s independence is established in statute as a public body, independent of Government, and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, for which I am a spokesperson. I regularly attend the Chamber and answer questions from colleagues on both sides of the House about the commission’s work. In a healthy modern democracy, we should seek compromise on matters of democracy and the regulation of elections, and not allow one party to set all the rules.
One party is in Government today, but there will have to be an election, and should another party form the next Government, they could author the next statement. We need to ensure that the structures that we agree as a House can withstand changes of political party in government. Political parties that are not represented in the House today might one day be elected to this House, and they might not value democracy as much as I know  all right hon. and hon. Members here today do. The structure that we are being asked to approve today comes straight out of a Republican party playbook of politicising the Electoral Commission. Those of us who see that as a threat do so because we look at what is going on in other countries and other democracies. We also look at what has been going on here through the various iterations of Conservative Governments over the past 14 years.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) set out some of this already, but it is worth reiterating that this is not a first offence. This is a Government who repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 to allow a Prime Minister to decide when the starting whistle can be blown on a general election. This is a Government who changed the way that electoral registration worked, moving from household registration to individual electoral registration, which meant that millions of people fell off the electoral roll—at which point, the Government decided to draw the new electoral boundaries using the numbers in that snapshot. By the way, those electoral boundaries were for 600 MPs, because at that point that number looked advantageous to the Conservative party. Then we had the 2019 general election and the picture looked a little different. It was then more electorally advantageous for the Conservative party to have 650 Members, so guess what happened? Yes, with absolutely no explanation, we went back to 650 Members.
The freedom to protest peacefully is important in a democracy, but it has been curtailed under this Government. The Elections Act 2022 contains a plethora of things that are damaging to the security and safety of our democracy. Voter ID has been widely discussed in this House, and it is true that it is easier for some voters to vote with photo ID than it is for others. A now ex-Minister slipped up and accidentally said what was actually happening, which is that an attempt to gerrymander in the Government’s favour had suddenly been found not to be in their favour. Voter ID was an attempt to make voting harder for those who were not planning to vote Conservative and easier for those who were planning to vote Conservative, although it arguably backfired somewhat.
The Government are also changing the rules on who can vote, which is important, and this week we have seen changes that remove the 15-year limit on overseas voters. We now have a situation in which a person who has lived outside this country for 16 years can vote in UK general elections, but a 16-year-old who has lived in the UK all their life cannot vote in a UK general election. Who gets to vote is political.
This is the politicisation of the Electoral Commission. The Elections Act changed the electoral system for police and crime commissioners and Mayors to the party political advantage of the Conservative party. The general election spending threshold for political parties has been raised way above inflation, with absolutely no explanation other than that the Conservative party feels confident that it has the money to spend. Now we have a strategy and policy statement to direct the work of our independent commission. I will call it what it is. This is the politicisation of the independent Electoral Commission. All Members of this House who believe in the independence of our Electoral Commission would do well to cast their vote against this motion today, because the consequences will be far-ranging.
The point of the Minister’s statement, which he has now read out several times, is that any future Government may set the direction and policy priorities of the independent Electoral Commission. Let us keep politics out of the Electoral Commission by opposing this motion today.

Rachel Hopkins: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who made some excellent points. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I too am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I rise to make a very short speech opposing the Government’s motion and the Conservative party’s efforts to undermine the elections watchdog. The last Labour Government set up the Electoral Commission to protect Britain’s democracy through the independent regulation of free and fair elections. The commission’s independence from Government of any shade must be crystal clear for voters and campaigners to see.
As a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and, for the Minister’s benefit, the Member of Parliament for Luton South, I have already shared my opposition to the Government’s draft strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission. At a time when trust in our politics is low, Ministers using this statement to set a political agenda for the Electoral Commission is a dangerous act that undermines its independence. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) put that well, too.
Even on its own merits, the statement fails to explain why it is required in the first place, and it provides no further support for scrutiny of the commission’s work. This begs the question: what is the point? As we know, there is cross-party agreement that the commission’s independence is vital to the health of our democracy, and both the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and the Speaker’s Committee have concluded that no statement is necessary.
The Electoral Commission has rightly pointed out that the repeal of the Government’s power to designate a statement would improve confidence and trust in our electoral system. That begs another question: why did the Government introduce the strategy and policy statement power in the Elections Act? Perhaps if we put it in the context of a very unpopular, declining Conservative party that is out of ideas, it could be suggested that it is trying to assert an unfair influence on the rules of engagement at the next general election.
Alongside the strategy and policy statement power, the Elections Act also introduced repressive voter ID requirements—a solution to a non-existent problem—yet we are still waiting to see any action on, or prioritisation of, the real issues facing our democracy, such as disinformation and AI. There is no concerted plan to get under-represented groups and people turning 18 on to the electoral register. Will the Minister explain why?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood put it so well, we are seeing the alarming trend emerging of a Government tightening their grip on the delicate functioning of democracy. It seems that, with this statement, the Conservative party is purposefully  seeking to undermine public trust in order to serve its own interests. Perhaps the Minister can try again to convince us otherwise. Is it arrogance or weakness that is informing these decisions? In any event, the public are under no illusions and can see this for what it is.
Labour will continue to oppose all reckless acts that threaten to undermine our democracy, and Labour will fight for every vote in every part of the country. The only people who will be deciding Britain’s future are the British public.

Richard Foord: I should say from the off that I would not allege that the Government want to achieve something untoward by the statement. I am not for a moment suggesting that they are seeking somehow to introduce this guidance for the Electoral Commission to gain a political advantage for the Conservative party.
However, perception matters. The Minister says that the statement is about resilient, open, transparent, secure, modern and fair democracy, but many of our constituents will ask, “What is wrong with the current system?” The fact is that nothing is wrong with the current system of the Electoral Commission reporting to the House, not to the Government.
I am surprised to have received considerable correspondence from constituents on this subject, which I had thought would be of little interest to people in Devon. Let me give the House an example of that correspondence:
“As your constituent, I am urging you to please consider voting against the draft Electoral Commission and Policy statement on Wednesday. No Government or political party should be able to have any say in the commission’s strategy or policy.”
The Electoral Commission exists to run elections. It seems obvious to me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues that the Electoral Commission needs not only to be impartial, but to be seen to be impartial. The concerns expressed by my constituents, and felt by my party, have also been highlighted by two Committees of this House: the cross-party Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which is so ably chaired, and the Speaker’s Committee, which has published its third report on the Electoral Commission of 2023. Those Committees have made it plain that we do not need this additional Government guidance to the Electoral Commission.
If that were not enough, the commission itself says that the Government having a strategy and policy statement is inconsistent with the independent role of the Electoral Commission. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues will vote against the statement.

Dawn Butler: The Minister is better than this motion—let us all agree on that. Like the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I think it is a hangover from the Boris Johnson days, when the Electoral Commission upset him and he wanted to influence it. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong.
The Government claim that this strategy will enhance the parliamentary accountability of the Electoral Commission and increase public confidence in its work, but as everybody has stated today, it will do the complete opposite. This strategy and policy statement is little  more than an attempt by the Government to undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission and to stamp their own agenda on the regulation of our democracy. This is a fight for our democracy.
We in this House need to take back control—that is important. Avoiding transparency and accountability seems to be the hallmark of the Government. Do not just take my word for it; the Electoral Commission itself wrote to MPs this week stressing that the principle of independence is crucial to maintaining confidence in our electoral system. It warned Members:
“The introduction of a mechanism such as a strategy and policy statement—by which a government can guide an electoral commission’s work—is inconsistent with this independent role.”
If the commission is saying that, and the Speaker’s Committee is saying it, why is the Minister trying to convince us otherwise? It really does not make any sense.
As we have heard many times, this is not the first time that the Government have attempted to rig our democracy. They forced through their voter ID system, which threatened to disenfranchise the most vulnerable in society. Remember that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) mentioned, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) let it slip that that was a deliberate attempt to manipulate electoral outcomes in favour of the Conservative party, and then went, “Whoops!” because he had made a mistake and said the quiet bit out loud. It is not a shock that the Government are once again attempting to influence an independent body that oversees our elections, but it should shock us all.
This draft strategy and policy statement sets out the Government’s strategic and policy priorities for the Electoral Commission. It also contains
“guidance to which the Commission must have regard in the discharge of its functions.”
That places on the commission a concerning legal duty to consider first and foremost the Government’s priorities when fulfilling its duties. If it does that, it cannot be independent, and the whole point is that it is supposed to be independent. It is simply unacceptable for the Government to direct the commission on how it should carry out its functions. If a foreign Government were wielding that much power over their elections, there would be calls to send in independent advisers to ensure that their elections were being held democratically—that is how bad this is. When people ask, “Do we have corruption in our Government?”, I say, “Yes, we do, and this is an example of that.”
The Government keep focusing on the prevention and detection of voter fraud, yet there is little evidence that voter fraud is widespread. In fact, it is so rare that there were only nine convictions—

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Lady talked about corruption in Government. I want her to withdraw that; she needs to rephrase what she said. She does know that—she is very experienced—so I ask her to say at this point that she withdraws any allegations of corruption within Government.

Dawn Butler: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw the statement that the Government are corrupt, or that there is corruption in the Government—I do not know for sure, but I withdraw that statement.
There are, however, issues that need tackling, and the motion does not achieve that. There are rising considerations, such as the threat of generative AI, the use of deepfakes, the spread of disinformation and the scraping of people’s data. None of that has been tackled today—I wonder why, although according to the fact checking organisation First Draft, 88% of the Conservative party’s most shared online adverts in the final days of the 2019 general election campaign were found to have contained misleading information.
When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will change his mind, because he is respected across the House and this motion is going to damage his reputation. As I have said, I urge the House to take back control and reject the motion.

Simon Hoare: First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. To address the last part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), I have been very grateful to colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have said some rather nice and kind words about me personally. I will not press to a Division the question of whether I deserve those nice and kind words—I am not sure how my side of the House would vote.
I say this in all seriousness: I hope the House knows me well enough to know that if I thought the intentions that sit behind this statement, the Elections Act, or any of the statutory instruments that have flowed from that Act were what hon. Members have asserted they were, I would have tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister. As a democrat—as somebody who has stood in elections, who has lost and won elections, and who has served in this place, if only for eight and a half years—I can say that there is nothing malign or mission-creep in anything that we are discussing today. I am not expecting that sentiment to change the votes of Opposition Members, but I say it sincerely. A number of Members have asked where the statement came from. Its genesis is, of course, to be found in sections 4A to 4E of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, inserted by the Elections Act 2022—that is where it comes from.
I will try to address some of the comments that have been made. My shadow, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), said that there was a political agenda; there is not. We paid full regard to the submissions of consultees, and we took a different view from them. That is perfectly fine. It does not undermine the system, nor is it a dangerous politicisation of the commission.
I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), a distinguished former elections Minister, was right when she referred to this as a reasonable vehicle. She asked about my discussions with the commission. I have had a very useful meeting with its senior team, at which we discussed a range of issues and how we can work together to support and buttress our democracy. Those conversations will continue. The statement is iterative and organic, and it can of course be refreshed to reflect issues and challenges as they arise in the field of AI, overseas involvement and so on. The House will notice that I use the word “as”—as they arise—not “if”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—I call him an hon. Friend because he is a friend—asked: where is the parliamentary sovereignty? When the Division bell rings, that is the exercise of Parliament’s sovereignty, and he will vote accordingly.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), in an rather confusing way, said he thought the statement was wrong because it did not mandate the commission or tell it what to do, and then went on in almost the same breath to say how frightful it would be if the statement could do that. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is proving to be, on this issue and on this issue alone, a little bit of a pushmi-pullyu, because the independence of the commission is absolutely safe and sacrosanct.
Let me read back into the record from the statement that the
“duty to have regard does not require the Commission to give lesser priority to, or to ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The Electoral Commissioners and the Commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the Commission’s strategy, priorities, how it should discharge its duties”,
and so on and so forth, within its five-year plan. The commission will not be reporting to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, No. 10 or the Cabinet Office. It will continue to report to Parliament through Mr Speaker’s Committee, using the functions it has.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Hoare: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will not, because the House has a lot of business today. Let me address the points that have been raised by others, because I want to give due attention to the points they have made.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) really should have a word with her own Front Benchers about overseas voters. Let me quote from her hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall on the statutory instrument we took upstairs on Wednesday 6 December 2023, when, from the Labour Front Bench, she told the Committee:
“We do not oppose the principle of overseas voting and giving citizens who still have a strong connection to the UK a voice in our elections, and that includes people who still have a strong connection to our local services and communities”.—[Official Report, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 6 December 2023; c. 6.]
So the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood is entirely out of step with her hon. Friend on the Front Bench.

Cat Smith: I thank the Minister for giving way this time. I wish to object in that the Minister is very much misportraying the point I made in my remarks. The point I made is that it is a political decision to decide who gets to vote, and I was comparing 16-year-olds in the UK with someone who had lived outside the UK for 16 years. That was the point I raised, and I do not think it is at all inconsistent with those on my own party’s Front Bench.

Simon Hoare: I heard the hon. Lady very clearly say that in principle she was opposed to overseas voters. If I misheard her, then I apologise, but that was certainly the thrust of the remarks she made.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) describes the statement as a political agenda. Is improving disabled access having a political agenda? If so, or if that is the charge, I am going to plead guilty. Is cracking down on electoral fraud? If that is the charge, clap me in irons. Is ensuring that the rules of registration and the importance of voter ID are promoted? If so, take me off to the Tower. I plead guilty as charged.

Clive Betts: The Minister rather misportrayed what I just said. I said that this statement either seeks to change how the Electoral Commission operates, in which case it is interference with an independent body, or does not seek to do that, in which case, what is the point of it?

Simon Hoare: The point, as I have consistently said, is to augment and buttress the work of the commission, and to give some reference tools in Parliament’s assessment. I also want to take issue with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood—again, I hope I heard her correctly—who prayed in aid the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, as if it was an ancient symbol of our democratic function that we have repealed. It sat for five years as a way of giving confidence to the markets that a coalition of two parties could deliver the clean-up strategy for what her party had left behind in 2010. So its repeal was not a dismantling of some great, permanent piece of our democratic architecture.
The hon. Member for Brent Central seemed to refer to this as a vendetta against the commission. Let me just invite her—[Interruption.] She referred to it as a vendetta—I wrote the word down. The record will say that she thought that Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was waging a vendetta against the commission because the commission had said something with which he disagreed; that was the word the hon. Lady used and I will play it back to her advisedly. I took a contemporaneous note of the word as she used it. Let me just invite her to consider that if we wished to wage a war against the commission, we could neuter it, fetter it, force it to report to us and we could abolish it, but we haven’t and we won’t. Why won’t we, why aren’t we? It is because we know that the commission is important, we respect its work, and we honour, cherish and guard its independence. We believe that this statement and the previous legislation that this House has put through will augment the accountability of the commission to Parliament and, in so doing, serve this as its sole and only purpose: to build on Parliament’s and the public’s confidence in its work. The commission was and is independent, and it will continue to be independent. I commend this motion to the House.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 190.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Electoral Commission Strategy and Policy Statement, which was laid before this House on 14 December 2023, be approved.

Social Security

Paul Maynard: I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
The draft order will increase relevant state pension rates by 8.5%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to July 2023. It will also increase most other benefit rates by 6.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2023. Subject to parliamentary approval, the changes will take effect from 8 April and will apply for the tax year 2024-25. [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. May I ask those not participating in the debate to leave quietly? It is difficult to hear the Minister.

Paul Maynard: The Government’s commitment—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Minister, I have just been asked to clarify that you are moving motion 3 on social security.

Paul Maynard: Yes, that is the one I am talking about.

Rosie Winterton: Thank you for clarifying that.

Paul Maynard: For the information of the House, this order covers state pensions. Motion 4 covers the guaranteed minimum pension, which is a sub-element of the pensions issue. As I will explain, the different elements—

David Linden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I clarify whether we are taking motion 3 on social security and motion 4 in one debate, or will we scrutinise the orders separately? It would be helpful for the House to have clarity on exactly what is happening.

Rosie Winterton: We are debating motion 3 on social security. We will then debate motion 4 on pensions.

David Linden: Two debates or one debate?

Rosie Winterton: Two separate debates.

Paul Maynard: Indeed, a few days ago I was asking those questions about whether to take the motions separately or together. They are being taken separately.

Stephen Timms: I am very relieved that we are getting a proper uprating this year, but the current headline rate of benefits is the lowest it has been in real terms for 40 years. Why have Ministers set benefits at a level so much lower in real terms than was chosen by Margaret Thatcher, Peter Lilley, John Major or Norman Fowler? Why is it so much lower?

Paul Maynard: There is always a lively debate about the adequacy of the overall benefits system. I think Beveridge had the debate under the Labour Government in 1945 on how to understand the concept of adequacy within the benefit system. What we are doing is ensuring that the purchasing power of benefits is maintained and that we are adhering to the triple lock. The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention allows me to restate, I think for the fifth time, the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, meaning that the basic and state pension will be uprated by the highest of growth in earnings or in prices, or by 2.5%.
This year that will mean an 8.5% rise from 2024-25, taking the basic state pension from £156.20 to £169.50 a week, and the full rate of the new state pension from £203.85 to £221.20 a week. Additional state pensions, such as the state earnings-related pension schemes and protected payments of the new state pension, will rise by 6.7%. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, and accordingly the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 8.5%. For single pensioners it will increase by £201.05 to £218.15, and for couples it will increase from £306.85 to £332.95 per week.
When it comes to support for those in the labour market, such as universal credit and the means-tested benefits it replaces, there is always a need to take into account work incentives as well as financial support for those in low-paid work, who are looking for work or who are unable to work. The Government announced a range of employment and conditionality measures at the autumn statement to maintain and improve work incentives. However, in striking a balance it is also right to increase the rate of those benefits by 6.7%, in line with the increase in CPI in the year to September 2023. That 6.7% increase means that universal credit will retain its purchasing power in the broader context of the Prime Minister’s delivered commitment to halving the rate of inflation.
The Government remain mindful of work incentives in the benefit system, and accordingly this order also increases the universal credit work allowance by 6.7%. They will increase from £379 to £404 per month for those also receiving support with housing costs, and from £631 to £673 per month for those not receiving support with housing costs. That 6.7% increase will also apply to the rates for contributory jobseeker’s allowance, contributory employment and support allowance, additional needs disability benefits such as the personal independence payment, carer’s allowance and statutory payments such as statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory sick pay.
The draft order, if Parliament approves it, commits the Government to increased expenditure of £19 billion in 2024-25. We believe it is right to make such a commitment because it maintains the triple lock, which benefits both pensioners already in receipt of the basic and new state pensions and younger people who are building up future entitlements as a foundation for private saving. It raises the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices and is part of a package of support for those in the labour market, which protects the value of benefits at a time of high, if falling, inflation while maintaining and increasing work incentives.
The draft order maintains the purchasing power of benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability. It also provides protection against inflation for people who are currently unable to participate in the labour market, such as full-time carers, who provide such an essential service to those they care for. On that basis, I commend this order to the House.

Alison McGovern: I thank the Minister for clarifying the way we are taking these orders today. We welcome the social security uprating, because we want to see social security keep pace with prices, particularly at a time of spiking inflation and economic instability. However, it is worth pointing out that before 2010, uprating in the manner we are doing it today was the norm for both Labour and Conservative Governments, but the past decade and a half has seen a change, and a variable approach to uprating from this Government. The debate about uprating has become almost farcical. Year by year there is speculation—I presume from some part of Government—that the uprating that was standard year in, year out under previous Governments may or may not happen.
That speculation does not come out of thin air. It causes immense amounts of distress and worry for people. It is almost as though there has to be a campaign for the status quo, which is not acceptable. I wonder why we are in what seems to be a policy roundabout where every time we have this debate about uprating, only for the Government to do it. That is a problematic way to do what is a normal function of social security: to keep pace with the cost of living.
We have to be honest about the reality of the situation we face. We have had universal credit for a decade or more, and I have been in this House long enough to have heard promise after promise that it would radically improve people’s work incentives, and that people’s position in life would be made much better by universal credit reforms. The DWP has many talented civil servants, who I am sure have worked hard to try to make the customer service elements function better, but we have to look at reality: 400,000 more children are now in poverty than when Labour left office in 2010. That is not acceptable to me.
Most people in poverty today are in work, so the idea that we hear again and again in this Chamber, that the best route out of poverty is work, is simply not true. Two thirds of children in poverty live in a house where someone goes out to work. I would like the Government to recognise that fact. We have had a decade and a half of so-called reform, and all we have done is get back to the situation where children are growing up dealing with the stress of not having enough money in the family home to give them a proper childhood. That is not acceptable. We see the consequences of a decade and a half of Tory rule all around us, whether the food bank parcels in the school office, the nurses who do a 12-hour shift but cannot make ends meet or, in the worst case, the man curled up in a sleeping bag in Westminster tube station as we leave this House. We see the consequences of Conservative Government all around us.
Labour has a plan to get people a better life, able to make ends meet and with a good start for their children. We will ensure that there is a breakfast club in every  primary school. We will help people have access to cheaper energy and an insulated home, to deal with the spike in costs that people have faced in recent years. We will reform universal credit, jobcentres and employment support to ensure that people get a better job with better pay, to help them live their life properly and save money for the Treasury. We will have a child poverty strategy that will overhaul universal credit.
On social security, I simply say this: we need an end to the uprating roundabout. We are simply asking for consistency of approach so that, as in previous decades under Governments of all kinds, we have the proper uprating of social security without the constant speculation from wherever it is in the Conservative Government that, somehow, ordinary working people must pay the price of the Government’s economic chaos. That is not fair. Let us end the chaos and have proper, normal uprating in the usual way.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the rises in benefits and the state pension. It would have been unthinkable not to raise benefits by inflation and equally unthinkable not to increase the state pension in line with the triple lock. The Government have done the right thing—these are the right decisions—and I will happily support these orders in the unlikely event of a Division.
I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), that this is not the most exciting piece of parliamentary theatre, even though we are spending tens of billions through these orders. The House is empty, these instruments go through on the nod, we cannot amend them, and the whole process creates a load of uncertainty for people who have to live on these benefits. I agree that, if we are going to find the money to put these benefits up—quite rightly by the two highest amounts in my 14 years in this place and probably going back a lot further—let us just change the process and have a default increase by CPI and in line with the triple lock so that we do not have to go through all this uncertainty. In what scenario now are we not going to increase benefits and the state pension by CPI or the triple lock?
If any future Government want to do something different, they could just bring in a Bill, as George Osborne did in the early years of the coalition. The House would be required to give its assent to that change, but we would not have to go through the uncertainty and the annual campaign to get to where we all think we are going to get to anyway, which does not help anybody. It would spare the Minister this afternoon’s excitement and the confusion of what is in which of these orders, which he might appreciate. I will leave that one for the Minister and see whether he is remotely tempted by it.
With the crazy process we currently have, we have come to the right answer, but I still do not really believe that we are in a sensible position. We have to use September’s inflation for an April increase in benefits, and we have to have an uprating order quite a while after the Chancellor has announced it in the Budget. The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the Government bring these orders before the House earlier than February, so I commend the Government—we are still in January. I suppose that is positive progress, although I do not quite know why we could not have done this in November, to get that certainty.
I hope, as the years go by, one year we will get some good news, and the Minister will say, “We have so many people on universal credit who we know we can uprate far more quickly, but actually we can use a much later inflation number because the amount of manual processing we have to do for the old benefits is much less of a work demand than it used to be.” We could then move to using December’s inflation figure to bring the benefit increase much nearer the actual cost of living and avoid the horrible situation we have currently where we are effectively six months behind, and, in the meantime, there has been a huge spike and people cannot afford to pay their bills. Perhaps the Minister could update the House on whether we are any nearer the prospect of a slightly more sensible process where we are not using out-of-date information to give people a rise in benefits that is already six months old, which exposes a load of risk in that situation.
There is also a lot of noise about the triple lock being unsustainable and suggestions that we will have to get rid of it because we cannot afford to give pensioners that level of increase. I cannot think of any justification for ever giving people who are reliant on a state pension and who have no possibility of going back to work an increase of less than inflation; it would be an intolerable situation to put people in. I think we have established over many long and painful years that giving pensioners less than earnings is not a very attractive position. We had that for a while, before the coalition Government quite rightly reversed it as one of the first things we did when we came to power 14 years ago.
I do not know why we have to have speculation around the idea of taking away the link to inflation or earnings—it is utterly impossible. I suppose we all wish that the 2.5% was a relevant consideration for us, but it looks like it might be a few years before we have to worry about that part of the triple lock kicking in. The problem is that the rise in earnings and the rise of inflation have got out of step and are in two different financial years. We are therefore effectively giving that increase twice, because we give it on inflation in year one, and then, when pay rises catch up in year two, we end up giving it again, and we have accidentally given a much higher amount over a period than either inflation or earnings. If that is what risks the long-term future of the triple lock, does the Minister think that a rolling two-year or three-year average would fix that? If that is the price of making the triple lock safe in the long term, I would pay it. I would not choose it, but if that stops the uncertainty over the whole thing being affordable, it would be better. Perhaps the Minister could help us with a better process for future years.
I fully support these orders and I will happily vote for them in the unlikely event that we get to a vote.

David Linden: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), a fellow member of the Work and Pensions Committee.
I stand here with a somewhat renewed sense of frustration following the release of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2024” report, which I will refer to throughout the course of my contribution. I find myself again speaking in this Parliament against a backdrop of a truly dire situation characterised by destitution. I wonder  what more can be said or done to make the British Government realise the true extent of the hardship they have inflicted on people across these islands. The SNP will not oppose the orders for 2024-25, but to keep it plain and simple: the damage has already been done. No amount of uprating will address the long-term consequences of entrenched destitution inflicted on households as a result of the British Government, who, I would argue, have been asleep at the wheel now for 14 years.
Although the Government’s announcement to uprate social security benefits means that shortfalls should not increase any further this year, the orders still fail to undo any of the cumulative impact of years of cuts to social security that households across these islands have endured. While the British Government have been asleep at the wheel, people across the country have been kept awake at night due to the sheer amount of stress and anxiety, wondering how they will feed themselves and their families, and how they can afford—they often cannot afford them—the essentials. We are faced with an horrendous picture, but that is the stark reality of living with this Westminster Government. Young children, school children, pensioners, young adults, those in and out of work—no one is left unscathed when they have the misfortune of interacting with the UK’s social security system.
As the Minister comes back to the Dispatch Box, I am sure full of civil service-inspired lines that do not meet the reality outside Whitehall, we are faced with a cold hard truth from which we cannot escape: people are suffering, and will only continue to suffer as long as this Government refuse to fix the known policy issues, on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) will elaborate.

Chris Stephens: We are debating what is supposed to be an adequate payment for social security. The Government’s case is completely weakened, is it not, by the ridiculous system of loans and reductions? My hon. Friend’s constituents in Glasgow East and mine in Glasgow South West are, on average, having their universal credit payments deducted by £60 a month because of this ridiculous system.

David Linden: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous questioner of the Government through Work and Pensions questions on the issue of debt and deductions. He is right to cite the figures in Glasgow, which are well known—local citizens advice bureaux all over our constituencies refer to them—but of course, we are not the only Members whose constituents are impacted by the debt and deductions policy of this Government, which is often found wanting. If the Minister could touch on debt and deductions when he sums up, that would be helpful.
In a Westminster Hall debate I held three weeks ago on the cost of living crisis, I compared the UK’s social security system, which used to be hailed as a safety net for those who needed it, to something that now resembles nothing more than a frayed rope, unable to bear the weight of the individuals who rely on it as a lifeline. After reading the new report and statistics produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, I have never been more assured in my assessment of the state of the social security policies enforced by this Westminster Government.
The JRF report outlines that more than one in five people in the UK were in poverty in 2021-22. That is 14.4 million people, 4.2 million of whom were children and 2.1 million were pensioners. Just as the statistics from Save the Children and Age Scotland show—I will outline them shortly—the JRF report has to be a wake-up call for this Government, and indeed the Government who may follow, if we are to make any tangible change to the broken system that lies before us. In its report, the graph that illustrates the percentage of people in poverty is broken down into the following categories: in poverty, but not in deep poverty; in deep poverty, but not in very deep poverty; and, in very deep poverty. I must be honest: I find it completely surreal that we have reached a point at which statistical analysis has to be broken down into such categories to illustrate the situation that people are having to endure. It is utterly shameful that such categories even have to exist in one of the richest countries on the planet.
I understand that to Members who are present today I seem frustrated, but that is because I am. The statistics in this report are not just numbers; they are the very reality of people in the communities that I represent, such as Parkhead and Shettleston, and those, such as Mosspark or Cardonald, that are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. They are truly harrowing findings.
I want to say something about universal credit, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). This policy is failing the very people whom it is, in theory, supposed to support: rather than supporting them, it drives destitution and food bank usage. It has been reported that 68% of people referred to a Trussell Trust food bank in Scotland who are in receipt of universal credit have money automatically deducted from their payments to repay debts, such as a DWP advance—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Moreover, food banks in the Trussell Trust network distributed about 3 million emergency food parcels across the UK in 2022-23, more than 1 million of which were for children.
The Government also refuse to scrap abhorrent policies such as the two-child cap and the associated rape clause. The DWP’s own figures show that in April last year, 1.5 million children were affected by the two-child limit—and I say that in the context of those 1 million children who were in receipt of food parcels. This is in addition to data from Save the Children, which found that 60% of households affected by the two-child cap included at least one adult in paid employment. No doubt the Minister will stand up and say that the two-child cap is about making sure that people get into work, but the fact is that it has an impact on people who are already in work. Punitive sanctions, deductions, the two-child limit and the five-week wait are all defining characteristics that are inherent in this British Government's social security system—policies that have caused, and continue to cause, hardship to so many.
Although I could stand here and generate endless amounts of research and statistics for the Minister, my plea is simple. Social security does not have to be done this way: we do not have to continue down this road of sanctions, deductions, rape clauses and five-week waits.   It is an undeniable fact that the Scottish Government cannot make any tangible change to these policies while 85% of welfare expenditure and income-related benefits remains reserved to the Government here in Westminster. For every step forward that the Scottish Government try to make, Westminster drags us back two.
The Scottish Government desperately need the opportunity to create a system, one designed to tackle poverty actively and empower those who interact with the system, without one hand being tied behind their back. When we have had the power to do so, we have introduced game-changing policies, such as the Scottish child payment. Analysis shows that the Scottish child payment could lift up to 50,000 children out of relative poverty in 2023-24, which is because the Scottish Government choose to prioritise that. Child poverty rates in Scotland sit at 24%, which is still far too high, but they should be seen in the context of the 31% rate in England and the 28% rate in Wales. That is likely to be due, at least in part, to the Scottish child payment.
Fundamentally, it is a political choice to lift children out of poverty. If this Westminster Government are unwilling to make that choice, I simply ask them to hand over the reins of power to the Scottish Government, who are more than willing, and certainly ready, to implement a system that will allow people to thrive rather than being punished for their circumstances. Until that happens, the Scottish Government are left fighting an uphill battle against a Westminster social security system that is broken beyond repair. Again, I am left wondering how different things might be if Scotland were able to take all the legislative and fiscal responsibility for these issues through the normal powers of independence.
Whether it is the British Government’s cruel sanctions regime or their refusal to fix known policy failures that only push people further into hardship, we are seeing what will sadly be one of the defining legacies of this Tory Government. As a result, poverty no longer just exists within our society. It is deepening, it is ingrained, and it is causing insurmountable pain to people right across these islands. As we are faced with the reality of more food parcels than ever being delivered through the Trussell Trust networks and shockingly high levels of child poverty, the only conclusion I can draw is that these are all signs of a Government, and indeed a Union, that the people in Scotland must escape if they are to have any hope of a fair and prosperous future.

Debbie Abrahams: I start by welcoming the uprating order, including the uprating of the local housing allowance, which has been frozen for over 10 years now. That is a significant move forward, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said, we need to recognise the context in which this apparently positive uprating is being brought in. We need to look at what has happened since 2010, particularly the various cuts and freezes to working-age support over the past 14 years.
I was going through some figures just before the debate started, and I noted that between 2010 and 2012, the uprating was about 1.5%; between 2012 and 2016, it was 1% a year, and between 2016 and 2020 it was zero. Of course, the average annual CPI increase for each of  those years was about 3%. That is the context. There has been a steady and consistent erosion in the value of social security, and this has affected universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, child tax credits, working tax credits and child benefits.
The Resolution Foundation estimated at the time that this was the equivalent of a cut of over £20 billion a year. That is £20 billion a year taken out of the support for working-age people. What is not well understood is that these are predominantly people in low-paid work; yes, a small proportion of people are on unemployment support or in long-term unemployment, but they are a tiny fraction of the population. This is predominantly support for people in low-paid work.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), a fellow member of the Select Committee, mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2024” report. I invite people to read it, and if they cannot read the whole document, they should read the summary. It is absolutely shocking. The headlines are that levels of relative poverty now are equivalent to those we had before the pandemic. The Government prefer to talk about absolute poverty because that is to their advantage, but in terms of relative poverty, we are back to where we were before the pandemic. So that everyone understands, what happened during the pandemic—who was affected, where was affected—reflected that poverty; those inequalities drove who was going to get ill. They drove what happened during the pandemic, and now we are back there, not having learned very much.
There are 14.5 million people living in relative poverty, of whom 6 million are in deep poverty. Deep poverty describes people who are living on less than 40% of median income. My fellow Select Committee member mentioned another level below that: very deep poverty. That is even worse poverty. The average income of somebody in very deep poverty is 59% below what we recognise as the relative poverty level. How on earth can we think that is acceptable in this country? We heard last year about the increase in destitution, which is another category altogether. There is deep poverty, very deep poverty and—the worst of the worst—destitution. The number of people in destitution has doubled, meaning there are 3.8 million people who cannot afford to meet their basic physical needs to stay warm, dry and clean, and to feed themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South talked about the children in the families who are affected. For every 1% increase in child poverty, 5.8 extra children out of 100,000 live births—I apologise for the fractions—will not reach their first birthday. That is the consequence of poverty. For those who survive, poverty affects every aspect of their development, including how their brains are wired, how they will develop and their attainment at school. It is a disgrace that we have such levels of poverty in this country.

John Martin McDonnell: We have this debate every year and it becomes increasingly distressing. For me, one of the most distressing statistics this year is the European comparison of growth rates: the height of children in this country is now falling behind the height of children in Europe. What does that mean? That is not a cosmetic issue, but one that concerns the health of the child and their ability to flourish.

Debbie Abrahams: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I will come on to.
We have talked about children, but disabled people are another cohort who have been punished over the last 14 years. Again, that is disgraceful—I apologise for repeating the same phrases, but I cannot think of adequate vocabulary to express my rage about what is happening in different terms. Ethnic minority communities are also disproportionately affected.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making a deeply important speech. Does she agree that it is also important to consider the effect poor-quality housing has on all the groups she mentions, in particular the combination of poverty and poor-quality housing, which leads to actions such as parents turning heating down?

Debbie Abrahams: That is a very good point. The Department for Work and Pensions has the largest spending across Government. The state pension accounts for the largest part of the Department’s spending, followed by universal credit, but third on the list is housing benefit and the support provided through the housing element of universal credit. Given that the Government are investing a large amount of taxpayers’ money in housing, one would think there was some way to safeguard its quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South made important points about the escalation in the use of food banks. As I have said before, we did not have a food bank in Oldham before 2010; we now have several to meet the need. We are aware of the impact of poverty on the labour market, which I know is of interest to the Minister. We need a healthy labour market to be able to provide the growth we all want to see across the country, but, again, all the evidence suggests that will not happen for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
This is becoming an increasingly unhealthy country. Our healthy life expectancy is declining and our life expectancy is declining, and that has been happening since 2017. At the time, Professor Sir Michael Marmot warned what the consequences would be, and he was right. In the report that he produced at the beginning of the year—I asked the Prime Minister a question about this just last week—he said that
“if everyone had the good health of the least deprived 10% of the population there would have been 1 million fewer deaths in England in the period 2012 to 2019. Of these, 148,000 can be linked to austerity”—
directly linked to austerity.
“In 2020, the first year of the covid pandemic, there were a further 28,000 deaths”
that could have been prevented. Those are the consequences of the poverty and inequality that we have in this country.
The Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the adequacy of social security support. With that in mind, I once more commend the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust, which have put together some interesting recommendations on the essentials guarantee. They suggest that what we provide should be based on need rather than on some quite subjective view of what the level of support should be. I hope the Work and Pensions Committee can support some aspect of that. Finally, I will just mention that £120 per week  for a single person, instead of the £70 currently, would be a good step in the right direction. Thank you for your latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Wendy Chamberlain: Given the number of us in the Chamber, I do not think that this will be an afternoon of high drama. I, like others, do not intend to divide the House on the motion before us.
The Government made their decision on uprating last year. Pensioners around the country let out a collective sigh of relief that the triple lock had been kept. No one here today will vote down either this or the next statutory instrument. Clearly, we on the Opposition Benches would like the measures to go further, but we know that the harm from torpedoing them would be catastrophic, because it would prevent the proposed increases from taking place. None the less, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, there are different ways of doing this, and given that we have this opportunity to speak today, I will do so to allow the Minister to get a feel for the mood of the House—how we feel the Government are performing in this area, and, more importantly in an election year, how our constituents feel that they are performing.
It is quite clear that the outcomes of Government policy are hard to swallow. What we are seeing is women dying as they fight for compensation because of the Government’s maladministration of their state pensions, and that is clearly not acceptable. We see pensioners going hungry and risking illness because they cannot afford to either eat or stay warm, and that is not acceptable. I raised a number of these issues relating to pensioner poverty in my recent Adjournment debate, and I look forward to meeting the Minister, as was promised, to discuss some of them. As Members have already said, we know that one in three children are living in poverty, and that is not acceptable.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the report card is in, and it is a fail. Record numbers of families are relying on emergency food parcels. In April to September last year, 320,000 people turned to a food bank for the first time. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s essentials guarantee. I find it interesting that we are here debating how much the uprating to benefits is, but we never seem to debate what is the correct amount in the first place that can allow people to live in dignity and obtain their essentials. Perhaps if people had that certainty, they would be better placed to improve their health and often their employment opportunities.
Incidentally, the Trussell Trust is on the estate today—indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I saw you at the meeting—and I hope the Minister has had the time to visit its staff in the Churchill Room to hear directly from them. The Minister and I have worked together on the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks and our inquiry report into cash or food. There today I learned my own statistics for North East Fife. I have one main Trussell Trust food bank, in Cupar, which until recently was ably run by Joe Preece—he  has just stepped down after a number of years in charge. Those statistics showed me that there has been a 25% increase in the use of the Cupar food bank since 2018. That is before covid; the Government give lots of reasons about people experiencing pressures due to the cost of living but we all know in this place that food bank use was increasing long before covid came along.
Child poverty costs the Government £39 billion each year through immediate additional public services and the delayed costs associated with the higher risk of unemployment in adults who grew up in poverty. That £39 billion per year is a huge amount of what is to some extent avoidable spending, and I find it hard to believe that we could find a voter who thought that letting a child live in poverty was acceptable if we could avoid it. Even if we could find that voter, I am pretty sure they would be horrified by the amount it is costing them, the taxpayer, to effectively do nothing. So I put it to the Minister and the Government that they are shooting themselves in the foot by uprating benefits with inflation while keeping the two-child limit and freezing the benefit cap. The Minister might say in his closing remarks that the cap was increased last year but that is disingenuous because it had been frozen since 2016, when it was actually lowered. Last year’s uprating was vital but totally insufficient in ending poverty.
When I was elected in December 2019 some 41,000 families across the UK were subject to the benefit cap and now there are over 75,000. The drop in numbers from the uprating last April will quickly vanish if the cap is frozen for another seven years. Indeed, these are the two policies which, if changed, would be the most effective and efficient means of lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I do not know for how long the Minister will be in his current position—we do not know when the general election will be this year and the change that might bring—but what a legacy it would be to take hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I hope he agrees with me on that.
It would not be a DWP debate for me without raising the issue of unpaid carers and in particular carer’s allowance. Following this uprating, carer’s allowance will be £81.90 each week, claimable by the 1.3 million carers who do 35 hours of unpaid care each week—full-time work. That is just £15.75 per week more than when I was elected four years ago—for each hour of cooking, cleaning, bathing, appointments, admin and worrying, an extra 45p. So yes I am bringing it up again.
I am looking forward to meeting the Chief Treasury to the Secretary next month to discuss carer’s allowance, particularly the much-needed reforms of it, because I believe that carer’s allowance creates barriers to work. Almost half of carers receiving carer’s allowance report that they are struggling to make ends meet, and if they are struggling, the people they are caring for are struggling too.
I am going to end with a local gripe. Yesterday I received a letter from the DWP north-east Scotland service leader. This followed from the Department’s written statement six days ago about starting the next phase of the transition to universal credit. The letter was dated seven days ago and it told me that the move to universal credit expansion into North East Fife had been moved forward, to nine days ago—two days before the letter was written, three before the announcement was made by the Government, and over a week before  I was actually told. MPs rely on timely communications to be able to do our job, to scrutinise Government activity and to support our constituents. I very much hope that that was a one-off error but I raise it here in the hope that future errors can be prevented.
These orders are a technical necessity, but when we look past that—when we look past the different ways of calculating inflation and the actuarial arguments—what we are talking about is what kind of society we want to live in. During covid many found out for the first time about the inadequacies of our social security system and for those remaining on it, it remains deeply inadequate.

Jeremy Corbyn: I cannot better what the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said about poverty in this country and we should reflect on that if we are passing social security uprating orders because the levels of poverty are an utter disgrace. One has only to spend a short time in a food bank anywhere across the country to realise the desperation of many people who are prepared to queue, often for a very long time, just to get a few packets of pasta to keep their family together for another week. The numbers accessing food banks are going up all the time. People are increasingly going to community centres to try to get food that has been donated by others. The level of poverty is huge.
I will bring two specific areas to the House’s attention. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just talked about the first: the two-child benefit policy, which limits universal credit to claimants’ first two children. Like all Members, I have many constituents who are part of large families. The Somali community, the Haredi Jewish community, the Congolese community, the Bengali community and a number of others often have quite large families. Is there anything morally right in saying that the third, fourth, fifth or sixth child in a family is less valuable than the first or second? Can anyone justify that? I do not believe that they can, yet the policy persists.
The cost of changing the policy would be £1.3 billion. That might sound like a lot. It does not sound very much compared with overall Government expenditure, nor compared with the benefits that it would bring in lifting a lot of children and families out of poverty. At the moment, around 1.3 million children are affected. They come from around 400,000 households. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) trying to intervene?

David Linden: No, I was just enjoying the right hon. Member’s speech.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Member was looking with interest. I am grateful to him for that, and for what he said.
I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will seriously examine the poverty created by the two-child policy, and that all parties in this House will recognise that we ill serve the community if we deliberately discriminate against children in large families. Children living in poverty are less likely to achieve their full potential in school, and the jobs and careers that they want. As a result, we all lose. We all lose out on their talents  because we disregarded their needs when they were at their most desperate. I hope that the Minister will recognise that.
Secondly, the uprating order includes an increase in housing benefit in line with the rate of inflation that is applicable. The problem is that in constituencies such as mine, where a third of the population live in the private rented sector, housing benefit never quite catches up with the increase in rents imposed by private sector landlords. It is not just a London problem; it exists in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle—all over the country. Yes, local housing allowance is being increased in line with a perception of what the affordable rent level is within the community, but it never quite catches up.
A friend of mine was helping somebody to find a flat locally. They spent days trawling through agents, and all the other places one goes to try to find a flat. They found fewer than half a dozen flats available to rent within the local housing allowance. In lots of inner urban areas, having neither rent controls nor a sufficient level of housing benefit or local housing allowance effectively leads to an expulsion of the poorest from those communities. We need to come back to that and introduce private sector rent controls, and we need a local housing allowance that is realistic and meets people’s housing costs. Otherwise, it is often the poorest and largest families who get shifted from one private rented sector flat to another, thus damaging those children’s education and life chances.
If we are to live in a society where we are proud of our welfare state, the welfare state has to work for the poorest in our community. At the moment, frankly, it does not.

Paul Maynard: I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who seems to think that I do not write my own material. He should know that my private office staff are sitting in trepidation, as I write across every speech they give me in blue and red ink. They never know what will emerge from my mouth. I can assure him that it is all my own work, and he can criticise it all the more for that reason.
I am also disappointed that people think this order is just a technical necessity. I do not call £19 billion of Government spending a technical necessity. It is one of the largest amounts of extra spending in which the Government engage in any particular year, and it will make a considerable difference to the lives of people across the country.

Alison McGovern: Do you want a round of applause?

Paul Maynard: No, I certainly do not, but I would want to think that those of us in this Chamber did not dismiss the order as a technical measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) repeated a point that I think he made this time last year—I also made this point when I was sitting in the far corner of the Chamber as a Back Bencher—on the timely application of these measures and whether we ought to make them more promptly after inflation is measured. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, he will know that this issue is often discussed,  with the discussion often revolving around the robustness of universal credit’s IT system compared with the IT systems for legacy benefits. I am told the hopefully promising news that state pension benefits, in particular, will be moving to a more modern IT platform by 2025, followed by disability benefits, contributory benefits and carer’s allowance, so there is a pathway towards getting all our benefits on to modern IT systems that are more agile in responding to economic situations. I hear his point, and work is under way.
The hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) both talked about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and I am a great admirer of its work. As a Back Bencher, I sat on many Zoom meetings and Teams meetings to listen to its briefings. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and I have discussed the essentials guarantee many times, so I take a personal interest in what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says. Since the period covered by its report, the Government have provided over £104 billion of extra support to help households with the high cost of living. Although I understand that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will stick to the broad themes of its argument, we need to recognise that Government support has moved on.
I do not want to pre-empt the meeting of the hon. Member for North East Fife with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which I hope will bring better news than I am able to deliver from the Dispatch Box. I have heard about her letter. My favourite episode of “Fawlty Towers” is “Communication Problems”, which is a comic classic, and the tale she tells is such an example. I am sure my officials have made a note, and we will hopefully follow up with a clarifying letter.
Finally, I turn to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Not being the Minister in charge of local housing allowance, I am a little cautious about giving him a more definitive answer at this stage—[Interruption.] Nothing annoys me more than when other Ministers intrude on my brief without telling me, so it is a courtesy to them, nothing more.
The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase the state pension by 8.5%, in line with the rise in average earnings, and it will increase most other benefit rates by 6.7%, in line with the rise in consumer prices. These changes commit the Government to increased expenditure of £19 billion in 2024-25. They maintain the triple lock, protect pensioners on the lowest incomes and support those in the labour market, while maintaining work incentives and protecting the value of benefits for those who cannot work and who have additional disability needs.
I commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

Pensions

Paul Maynard: I beg to move,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
I feel almost like a Netflix series, in that people can now binge-watch two episodes of me in a row. I hope none the less that this matter is worth equal consideration.
The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the yearly amount by which a guaranteed minimum pension part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between April 1988 and April 1997 must be increased. Occupational pension schemes are required to increase GMPs that were earned during that period and are in payment by 3% for the 2024-25 financial year.
As this is quite a technical matter, I will provide a little background information on GMPs, and what they are and are not. GMPs were created to help make occupational pension provision more affordable and more secure. As many Members present will be aware, the state pension used to be made up of two parts: the flat-rate basic state pension and the earnings-related additional state pension. The flat-rate state pension was funded through the national insurance scheme, and paid the full rate to those with sufficient qualifying years of NI contributions, or pro rata to those with a partial record. The second part of the state pension, the earnings-related additional state pension, was linked to a person’s earnings. The national insurance contributions paid by both the employee and their employer gave the employee the right to an additional earnings-related state pension. That was designed to ensure that as many workers as possible were able to save for their retirement through a work-based pension.
However, many employers already offered their workers a company pension through their own scheme, so many people were already building up an occupational pension, and an earnings-related additional state pension in effect replicated that provision. That was considered onerous and potentially unaffordable for both employers and employees. It was seen as double provision and over-complicated. In order to simplify the situation, the Government of the day introduced in 1978 the system of contracting out, and the provision of guaranteed minimum pensions, which are the subject of this order.
Between April 1978 and April 1997, employers sponsoring a salary-related occupational pensions scheme could “contract out” their occupational pension schemes from the earnings-related additional state pension. People who were members of a contracted-out scheme were taken out of the additional state pension, so as a result both the employer and the pension scheme member paid lower-rate national insurance contributions. In return, salary-related contracted-out occupational pension schemes were required to take on the responsibility for paying their members a guaranteed minimum pension as a part of their occupational pension from the scheme.
The guaranteed minimum pension that the member built up in the scheme would be broadly equivalent in value to the additional state pension that they would have received had they stayed in the state system. The majority of employees would also have built up an  occupational pension over and above the guaranteed minimum pension amount, but the scheme pension could never be lower than that guaranteed minimum. The crux of the idea was that, rather than paying additional national insurance to the state in order to build up an additional state pension, people could build up a similar amount of occupational pension through a workplace pension scheme. The system ran in that way from 1978 to 1997. Having set out the detail, which I accept is complicated, let me turn to the order before us.
The order provides a measure of inflation protection for the guaranteed minimum pension part of an occasional pension built up between April 1988 and April 1997. Legislation stipulates that, when there has been an increase in the annual level of prices as measured the previous September, the order must increase the guaranteed minimum pension part of the occupational pension by that percentage or 3%, whichever is lower. As the September 2023 figure was 6.7%, the increase for the financial year 2024-25 will be 3%. The cap of 3% aims to achieve a balance between providing some measure of protection against inflation for members and, crucially, not increasing schemes’ costs beyond what they can generally afford, in order to avoid undermining the viability of some schemes and seeing them go into the Pension Protection Fund.
An obvious question comes to mind: what happens when inflation is above 3%, as it is currently? Most members who reached the state pension age before 2016 will still get the same inflation protection for their post-1988 guaranteed minimum pensions as if they had never been contracted out. That is achieved through an uplift that they receive in their additional state pension. For those reaching state pension age after April 2016, who are therefore receiving the new state pension, there are transitional arrangements in place, which are particularly beneficial for people who are contracted out. These members will therefore still get the 3% increase from their occupational pension schemes.
I recognise that this is perhaps a very complex and technical area, but I am satisfied that the order ensures that the burden placed upon schemes is an appropriate one, but also one that ensures that recipients get an increase in their pensions that gives them some measure of protection against inflation. I therefore commend it to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Alison McGovern: Hopefully, the House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to repeat the explanation of this order that the Minister has just given. As he said, the statutory instrument addresses the needs of a specific group of pensioners. We support the measure and will therefore obviously support the order. I will just take a very short amount of time to raise a few other related issues.
Further to the debate that we had on the previous order, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will remember that under Labour we saw an historic fall in pensioner poverty. Unfortunately, that has been rising recently, which is alarming after nearly two decades of decline: one in six pensioners are now living in poverty, with the figure rising to one in four among those who are single.  I hope the Minister agrees that Britain should be one of the best countries in the world in which to be a pensioner, so the fact that many are still spending their later years in poverty does not reflect well on us.
Labour in power introduced pension credit, ensuring that pensioners’ weekly income reaches a minimum guaranteed level while offering a whole host of benefits, such as free dental and optical treatment. However, as we have discussed many times across the Dispatch Box, despite highly publicised campaigns, statistics released in October show that 40% of those eligible to claim pension credit are still not doing so. Given that I am sure the Minister shares my concern about this matter, will he confirm what more the Government are doing within their powers to make people aware of their potential pension credit entitlements?
Since we have just rehearsed all of the arguments about the cost of living, I thought the Minister might like to take a moment to reflect on what more the Government can do. As we know, social security systems cannot perform their most basic function if entitlements are eroded by inflation or, worse, not taken up at all. Further to the debate that we have just had, we also need to end the speculation about uprating. Pensioners should not be put through that, any more than anyone else should.
As we all know, the key to a good retirement starts in the workplace, when retirement can often seem like a distant concept. We need people to consider their future early on, which was the logic behind automatic enrolment —a massive policy success started under the last Labour Government, which has driven up the number of people saving. However, too many people are still falling through the net.
In September, the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 received Royal Assent with cross-party support, giving Ministers the power to abolish the lower earnings limit for contributions, and reducing the age for being automatically enrolled from 22 to 18. At the time, the pensions Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), said:
“We will consult on the detailed implementation at the earliest opportunity”.
We have not had further information about that implementation, and I wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to share any information about what is happening with those powers. I hope that all Members across this House will agree that the extension of auto-enrolment is a good thing, and that we should crack on with it.
I will make one final point: the roll-out of collective defined-contribution schemes, which provide an income for later life while giving members greater certainty about retirement outcomes that they could achieve, is certainly to be welcomed. However, more needs to be done to ensure that the proper framework is in place for companies that express an interest in CDCs, while ensuring that those who can still join a defined-benefit scheme do so. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that.

Wendy Chamberlain: Very briefly, the Pensions Minister will know, because there was a Westminster Hall debate on this a couple of weeks ago, about some of the issues experienced with  defined-benefit pension schemes with companies such as BP not applying the limits that have been recommended by the trustees. Does the shadow Minister agree that we need to ensure that companies that have made promises to pensioners actually pay out?

Alison McGovern: I am not entirely sure whether that intervention was for me, so I will let the Minister respond when he winds up. However, on companies keeping their promises, that seems like one of the basics to me.
As I said before, we support these measures and will not oppose the Government’s proposals, but I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on the questions I have raised.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

David Linden: When the Minister was making reference to a Netflix series earlier, I did think that the pensions uprating debate would be an unusual backdrop for Netflix and chill. I do not know whether that is the first time “Netflix and chill” has been referred to in Hansard—I am at risk of getting myself into trouble now, so I will move on quickly.
As with the previous order, my party will not oppose this order. In the previous debate I focused my remarks on poverty more broadly. Now I want to speak about the number of pensioners in poverty, which rose between 2020-21 and 2021-22, with pensioners on low incomes among some of the hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report, which I cited earlier, revealed that 2.1 million pensioners were living in poverty in the UK in 2021-22, with the poverty rate for single pensioners almost double that of couple pensioners and about one in six pensioners overall living in poverty. I know this is felt acutely in communities such as Carmyle and Sandyhills in Glasgow’s east end.
The reality, according to Age Scotland, is that 9% of over-50s are skipping meals due to financial pressure, and 65% of people aged between 60 and 64 are having to dip into savings to meet unexpected rising costs. I met the Trussell Trust just this morning, and it is certainly seeing a larger number of pensioners using its service than before. This is of course the case for many WASPI women, given that the ombudsman found that there was indeed maladministration in the communication from the Department for Work and Pensions, with the cost of living crisis certainly making matters much worse for women born in the 1950s.

Chris Stephens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning 1950s-born women such as my constituent Kathy McDonald. Does he not agree that there could have been plenty of time today for us to discuss the plight of those 1950s-born women, and to see what justice and compensation we should be delivering for them?

David Linden: My hon. Friend is right. I know Kathy McDonald, one of the 1950s women, who is a force of nature and does an incredible service for women  born in the 1950s. It is frustrating that we can have these debates about 1950s women, but I am clear that what 1950s women want is not necessarily words from this place, but action from this place. I think that challenge will be put to the two main parties at Westminster as we come towards the election, and I encourage all those 1950s women to press their candidates on the need for fair and fast compensation, as well as for wider action to tackle the unacceptable gender pension gap that is so pervasive.
As Age UK highlights, the state pension is the largest single source of income for most pensioners, so retaining the triple lock is the very bare minimum. I was glad to hear the comments in the previous debate from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on that. The British Government must urgently address the shockingly low state pension levels, as they are already providing a lower state pension than, frankly, most other advanced economies relative to average earnings.
As with the issues we face with the social security system, the only way I can see our bring truly able to protect pensioners and treat older people with the basic dignity and respect they deserve is through the powers of a normal independent nation, where we can both improve state and occupational pensions, and set the state pension at an appropriate level within a Scottish context. That is the most crucial point I want to finish on, because constituents in communities I represent, such as Sandyhills and Carmyle, know one thing: for as long as Scotland remains within this Union, the state pension age will continue to climb and the state pension itself will remain pitifully low, leading to more pensioners being placed in the invidious position of choosing between heating or eating. That says everything people need to know about this Westminster Government, who the people of Scotland did not vote for.

Paul Maynard: With the leave of the House, let me thank those who have responded to this debate. There has been a bit of speculation about uprating, but does that start from those on the Government Benches and come from nowhere else? It does not; it starts on the Opposition Benches and it is sheer political opportunism, nothing more. It will happen year after year, just as the sun shines and the rain falls.
The shadow Minister made some interesting points that I want to try to respond to, particularly on pension credit, where I know there is a shared desire to make sure that we always maximise take-up. Through the things we have been trying to do lately, besides the television campaign we have been running involving footballers such as Harry Redknapp and so on, every time we write to people about state pension uprating—we are still legally obliged to do so, to 11 million pensioners—they get a piece of paper about pension credit as well. We are trialling writing to pensioners on housing benefit to ask them to apply, to see whether they also are eligible. We have not seen the outcome of that work yet. I am really interested to see it, because it will be a good indicator of whether we can use other datasets to get more people involved. We are seeing much higher claims levels—80% higher than a year ago—so a lot of what we are doing is generating more interest. That does not always feed through to a successful claim, but it is showing that there is more interest.

David Linden: There is no disagreement on this point about pension credit. I just gently ask the Minister to go back to his officials and re-examine the paper form for pension credit, which runs to some 232 questions. Given the nature of the demographic dealing with pension credit forms, there must be a way of trying to simplify them. Does he agree that it might be possible to slim down 232 questions, so as to get more people their pension credit?

Paul Maynard: I very much take the point. I was sitting down today with people from a range of charities to discuss that very point: how do we get access to those who are least inclined to apply at the moment and what groups in society are we missing? The discussion was very much about how an overreliance on IT can often be a barrier and so this is very much part of our thinking.
The shadow Minister also asked about the 2017 reforms, and the extension of auto-enrolment, investing from the first £1 of income and so on. Those things are a personal priority to me. I would love to give her a date for when she will see that; “in due course” is never a good answer to give at the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid that it is the answer at this stage. However, I am pursuing this within the Department, so she has my personal pledge that I am pushing it is as hard as I can. I am also enthusiastic about CDCs, as I know she is. She will be aware that Royal Mail already has a scheme “ready cooked”, and I am keen to see how it progresses, but I want to make sure that other businesses that are also showing an interest can input into the formulation of the more sustainable regulations.
Finally, I come to the point about BP made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). Unfortunately, commitments given in the Chamber do not always align with ministerial diaries as to when I am due to meet people, so on all the things I promised I would raise, I have yet to have a chance to meet the pensions regulator to have that fuller discussion. This is still a case of “watch this space”, but I stand by everything I said in Westminster Hall and it is still on the agenda. On that note, I commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Medicines

That the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Coronavirus and Influenza) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Employment

Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 9 November 2023, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 185.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Petition - Labour’s Clean Air Act

Afzal Khan: I rise to present a petition about the need for the Government to tackle the UK’s biggest environmental health threat: air pollution. Clean air should be a fundamental human right, and has the potential to save millions of lives. Currently, air pollution contributes to 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK; in Manchester, more than 100 people a year die as a direct result of toxic air, with babies, pregnant women and the elderly most at risk. Labour’s clean air Act would establish a legal right for citizens to breathe clean air and abide by World Health Organisation clean air guidelines, creating a healthier and safer Britain for all our constituents. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to formally enact Labour’s Clean Air Act and take further steps to address the air pollution national health emergency in the UK.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that clean air should be a fundamental human right and has the potential to save millions of lives; notes that Labour’s Clean Air Act would establish a legal right for citizens to breathe clean air and abide by World   Health Organisation clean air guidelines; further declares that Labour’s Clean Air Act would place tough new duties on Ministers to ensure air quality guidelines are met to bring in accountability for the Government; and further declares that Labour’s Clean Air Act would grant new powers to local authorities to allow them to take urgent action on air quality.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to formally enact Labour’s Clean Air Act and take further steps to address the air pollution national health emergency in the UK.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002903]

Petition - Sale of Arms to Israel

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk relating to the sale of arms to Israel. It is fair to say that my correspondence has never included as many representations from constituents on the issue of Gaza and Palestine and expressing their outrage as it has over the past few months. I share their outrage and concern about the humanitarian crisis that we seeing unfold. Many believe that we should stop exporting arms to Israel, and I agree with them. It is worth noting that the petition was prepared prior to the International Court of Justice’s ruling suggesting that there may be plausible evidence of genocidal acts committed by Israel in Palestine. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to suspend all arms transfers to Israel including weapons, arms, munition and ammunition, parts and components and other equipment that pose a substantial risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in this conflict.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the Government’s sale of arms to Israel is unacceptable, as there is substantial evidence that these arms are being used to kill innocent civilians in Gaza; further declares that this is in direct breach of the UK arms export policy, which states that the licenses cannot be granted if there is a “clear risk” the arms might be used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to suspend all arms transfers to Israel including weapons, arms, munition and ammunition, parts and components and other equipment that pose a substantial risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in this conflict.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002909]

Protecting and Restoring Wetlands

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

Siobhan Baillie: I am glad to have secured this debate on the pressing issue of protecting and restoring wetlands in the UK. As the Minister knows, I never duck an opportunity to talk about Slimbridge, wetlands and flamingos. I understand that I have until 7.30 tonight to talk about them—and that I probably would never be allowed to speak in the House again if I did so, but I could fill that time.
I am blessed to have Slimbridge, the headquarters of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, in my constituency and to live just down the road from it. I told a Gloucestershire Live reporter this week that it seems to me complete madness that previous Stroud MPs have never used their expertise to highlight the WWT on the national stage. We are really grateful for everyone’s involvement. We now have an all-party parliamentary group for wetlands, and wetlands are a constant feature of discussions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—mainly because I pester everyone all the time, which is a great pleasure.
Slimbridge is a place that creates calm, allowing people to walk among the most beautiful birds and wildlife, learning about conservation successes and challenges on the way. My daughters love “welly boot land”. Years ago, I got no phone reception at Slimbridge so I used to go to hide there, and it was beautiful. World Wetlands Day, on 2 February, celebrates the creation in 1975 of an international treaty, the convention on wetlands. I thank the Minister for taking the time to visit the Slimbridge experts last week and for her advocacy on this issue. I also thank previous Ministers, some of whom are in the Chamber.
Wetlands are some of the most threatened habitats in the world, yet they are also the most vital for wildlife and people. In the UK we have so many types of wetlands, from coastal habitats such as saltmarshes, seagrass and estuaries, to inland features such as ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, bogs, fens, swamps, marshes and peatland. The Severn estuary is a true gem in my constituency, and is key for supporting internationally important numbers of dunlin, redshank, ringed plover, black-tailed godwit, shelduck, teal, pintail, and another that I will not even try to pronounce. It is incredibly important.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I have noticed in the time she has been in this House that one of her greatest interests is the Slimbridge wetlands. Castle Espie, just outside Comber in my constituency, is part of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust as well. The work carried out by the trust there is essential, given that almost the entire global population of brent geese reside in and around Strangford lough during the winter months. That work takes time and money, and it needs to be better supported by Government. I fully support what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, because I know that the benefits she gets for Stroud, we will get for Comber.

Siobhan Baillie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I would very much like to visit to see his brent geese at some stage. Because it is so important for conservation and awareness, I encourage all Members to go and get their social media clips with their wetlands and wildfowl.
The convention on wetlands, also known as the Ramsar convention, is a crucial international treaty aimed at conserving and promoting the sustainable use of wetlands. The oldest global intergovernmental environmental agreement in the world, it set the standards for international co-operation on environmental action that other, more high-profile international agreements have followed. I am proud to say that the UK Government were an early signatory to the convention back in the ’70s, underlining our commitment to the preservation of these valuable ecosystems. The WWT plays a significant role as one of the six international organisational partners involved in the convention’s implementation. Various stakeholders, including environmental non-governmental organisations, contribute to this collaborative effort, showing the importance of partnerships in safeguarding our wetlands.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for initiating this debate and for kindly letting me say a word about the Freshwater Habitats Trust, whose New Forest representative, Thea Margetts, I met at the volunteer fair put on by the national park authority last weekend. It is amazing what these volunteers contribute, not least the New Forest water code and other great pointers and advice as to how we can keep these precious but delicate environments safe.

Siobhan Baillie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention, which brings alive the number of freshwater volunteers and shows just how many people are gripped by this environmental work, really taking it into their hearts and running with it. I would say that the wetlands squad is true squad goals! They really do work together and with a range of different people across this country and around the world.
Ramsar sites—protected wetlands of international importance—are some of the UK’s most precious natural treasures. With 175 Ramsar sites, the UK has more than anywhere else in the world. These sites are the equivalent of the white cliffs of Dover or Stonehenge in their significance to the cultural identity of our nation—a country renowned for its wet weather.

Richard Foord: I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate in the same week as World Wetlands Day. I wanted to contribute some information about Seaton wetlands and, in particular, the Black Hole marsh. Before 2008, the Black Hole marsh was just a drained agricultural field, but the Environment Agency worked with a local engineering company to devise a tidal exchange gate that allows in salt water to ensure the lagoon has just the right level of salinity. Since that was done, we have seen the return of the dunlin, the ringed plover and the black-tailed godwit. Does the hon. Lady think that the tidal exchange gate innovation might be replicated elsewhere?

Siobhan Baillie: The opportunities for wetlands and this kind of work are absolutely endless, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about that. There has been an extraordinary amount of investment in this  work in the hon. Gentleman’s neck of the woods and elsewhere in the country. It would be helpful to hear more about these opportunities and the innovation of which he speaks.
With all my colleagues in the Chamber bringing alive their own experiences of wetlands, I believe the UK can really celebrate World Wetlands Day and hold our head high because of our history and status as an early signatory to the convention. If we choose to lead on this, with the multifaceted environmental masterclass that our wetlands represent, we will be able to command immediate respect because of our history and our work so far.

Sarah Dyke: I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Without wanting to sound competitive, Somerset has some amazing wetlands and Ramsar sites, and Somerset Wetlands, which includes the west of Sedgemoor in my constituency, is England’s largest super national nature reserve. Does she agree that such declarations are crucial to reversing nature’s decline and to the fight against climate change?

Siobhan Baillie: I do. I will come on to the fight against climate change, because the hon. Lady is absolutely right. She speaks about Somerset. Investment of £20 million, I think, went in for flood resilience work, and there is work going on with farmers. The expertise she speaks to can be sold around this country and exported around the world, so I am excited that she is able to speak so fondly of that.
With volunteers in mind, I want to speak to the current situation with our wetlands. I send love, respect and absolute hugs to all the Slimbridge volunteers; we could not do the conservation work without them. It is a sad fact that for centuries we have not been looking after our wetlands; there has not been that love and care that everyone in the Chamber wants for them. A staggering 75% of our UK wetlands have been lost over the past 300 years—this is not just a recent thing—and while the rate of decline is now slowing thanks to a lot of the work that is going on, the precious few wetlands that remain are under considerable pressure. They are in a poorer condition than we would like, and we think we could do much more work. I will speak briefly about what we should be focusing on now and in the coming months.
I would welcome a renewed push on four transformative steps that would speed up the progress on creating and restoring 100,000 additional hectares. I invite everyone in the Chamber to join the all-party parliamentary group for wetlands and join the fight, because it is crucial to achieving the net zero target. I would like action, but I will also take manifesto commitments.

Trudy Harrison: Before my hon. Friend comes on to her priorities, may I just set out how impressive she has been in persuading me, as a former Minister, and colleagues across the House of the wonderful benefits of wetlands? We are all more knowledgeable thanks to her and the work of WWT in her constituency. As well as the benefits for climate change and biodiversity, does she recognise the benefits to our health? Our mind, body and soul can really appreciate the value of spending time in green and blue spaces. As there seems to be some competition, let me say that I have 32 miles of  coastline and many lakes—a wetland in the English Lake district. The benefits to our mental and physical health must not be underestimated. A wetland can be just a pond, and the 30 million gardeners across this great land can also play a significant part.

Siobhan Baillie: Absolutely right. My hon. Friend is a keen walker and gets out into the environment as much as possible. To be beside water is a particularly tranquil experience for most people and that is certainly something WWT campaigns on, because we know the benefits.
I ask the Government to commit to a national strategy for UK wetlands. Most of the work has been done, so let us label it as a national strategy and pull it all together, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing some great work. I would like to see a dedicated domestic wetlands team at DEFRA, to ape the success of the peat team, who are brilliant experts. If I cannot have a whole team, I will take a named civil servant we can go to who really owns all the different moving parts, because I know it is in lots of different parts of the DEFRA family.
I would like to create a nutrient offsetting code to rebuild investor confidence in that market, and to provide guidance and training for national flood management to ensure that land managers, councils and practitioners can take advantage of those options. I would like the creation of a saltmarsh restoration grant scheme, as has been done for peatland, and to scale up saltmarsh creation through the nature for climate fund. I would like a requirement for new developments to include sustainable urban drainage systems. We believe schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Act 2010 should be enacted—I have spoken to that in this place on a number of occasions. As I have said, however, plenty of very good work has been done, and I think we should talk about it more and perhaps pull it all together, because wetlands are nature’s secret weapon.
I recall that when my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) came to Slimbridge, we had a mic-drop moment when the experts explained that wetlands can store 18 times more carbon than trees. While a tree takes 10 years to reach its full “pace”, with wetlands the process is instant. I think that the slogan for wetlands should be #justaddwater—for environmental clout, for wellbeing, for flood defence, for carbon storage and for water quality. I understand that the Minister will speak about some of the work that the Government are doing, because there is an awful lot of it, but I think that if there had been more awareness of what is going on, we would not have seen the nutrient neutrality drama and some of the firefighting that Ministers were having to do. So much work was actually there, but no one had mentioned it. I think that home-builders are already getting there; we just need to light the touch paper and let everyone run.
There is a great deal more that I could say, but you have a life to get back to at some stage, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know what long hours you work. Let me just mention the powerful benefits to British wildlife. I think that there is too much talk of targets and carbon in this place, but people “get” species and wildlife. In the UK, wetlands cover only 3% of the land, but they support 10% of its species. It is clear that we can scale up biodiversity and other support if we invest, think it through and protect our wetlands.
Let me say a little about flood resilience. The Government’s green recovery challenge fund helps projects such as the WWT’s Two Valleys: Slow the Flow, which demonstrates the effectiveness of using natural flood management to stop flood pressure on properties downstream. That is happening in Somerset, but I know that work of this kind is taking place in local authority areas all over the country. Let us bring it to life and end the devastating impacts of events such as Storm Henk, which we saw recently. Let me also say something about water pollutant filters. I know that in her previous brief the Minister worked extraordinarily hard on the problem of sewage and the Victorian networks that we are trying to repair, but we now know that specially engineered wetlands called treatment wetlands have the potential to remove up to 60% of metals, trap and retain up to 90% of sediment run-off, and eliminate 90% of nitrogen; so we can use wetlands to remove pollutants from water.
As for the point that has been made about physical wellbeing, spending just 10 minutes in urban wetlands has been shown to yield extensive improvements. I urge everyone to go down to Bridgwater and observe the juxtaposition of the big high rises and the wetlands that have been created, which people have been using throughout covid and beyond.
The Climate Change Committee has stressed the importance of protecting and restoring saltmarsh and seagrass because they are so efficient at carbon removal. In the long term, saltmarshes bury carbon 40 times faster than woodland. I know that the Government are obsessed with trees because we can count them, and we like things to be measurable, but there are other options. Let us do the trees, but let us do the wetlands as well.
The WWT has a superb Blue Recovery Leaders Group of businesses which have backed this initiative because they can see the economic benefits and want to invest in the environmental power of the country. Companies such as Aviva have invested a massive amount because they can see that this stuff works for their customers, for their employees, and for the country and beyond. In short, wetlands have nature-boosting, flood-busting, carbon-sinking, mood-lifting, water-cleaning superpowers, so why are we not making more of them—or, rather, even more of them, because I know exactly how much work the Minister and others are doing in this regard?

Rebecca Pow: What a wonderful wetland-busting speech that was. But I expected no less of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is not only a wonderful advocate for her constituency but a particular advocate for the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and—as has been pointed out by some of our colleagues—for all things wetland, helping to embed this subject in our parliamentary agenda. She is fortunate to have in her constituency the wonderful wildfowl and wetland centre at Slimbridge. I am a bit envious, but actually I have the Somerset levels in my constituency, which is itself an internationally recognised wetland, so we have a great deal in common.
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has laid out today and for making the case for more attention for wetlands. I will pick up many of her points but I also  want to convey that we are already doing a great deal for wetlands. As we have heard, the term covers a multitude of areas, from the huge internationally protected sites right down to the garden pond. That point was well made by the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). I want to talk about what we are doing, while obviously recognising that there is almost always more to do. The importance of wetlands is recognised by the very fact that people have stayed for the Adjournment debate, which is not always the case, so thank you to them.
These ecosystems are not just landscapes of natural beauty and biodiversity; they are also critical to our mission to restore nature and to hit our climate change targets. I am going to lay out the things that we are already doing and the things that we are working on. A year ago, we published our environmental improvement plan, which set out the Government’s ambitions to improve the environment for the whole nation. Those commitments are underpinned by our legally binding Environment Act 2021 targets, including our apex target to halt the decline of species by 2030. This should not be taken lightly; it is a globally leading target. It is pretty phenomenal to have committed to setting such a target in law. We have also committed to creating or restoring over 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats by 2042.
Internationally, at the most recent convention on biological diversity, COP15, the UK was at the forefront of efforts to secure another ambitious agreement, to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030, including through the conservation and restoration of freshwater habitats. We have heard today about the freshwater volunteers working in the Forest of Dean—[Interruption.] Apologies, the New Forest. Those volunteers recognise the importance of the habitat in their area in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). In December we furthered our commitment to freshwater wetland habitats at the United Nations framework convention on climate change, COP28, by signing up to the international freshwater challenge. We are also a proud member of the international Ramsar convention on wetlands. Across the UK, including the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, we protect 175 internationally important Ramsar sites. That is more than any other country in the world.
I want to add something that we have done through the environmental improvement plan and the national adaptation plan. We will be establishing a UK wetland inventory in support of the Ramsar convention. This involves mapping where these varied wetlands are, which will inform our actions to restore them, improve them or add to them. That will be very beneficial, and it is something that many people have been calling for. These wetland sites have received enhanced protections that reflect their importance. We have given them the same protections as our country’s most precious sites—our protected habitat sites—to prevent damage by applying rigorous environmental assessments. Our commitment in England is to get 75% of our protected sites into favourable condition by 2042. That will benefit large swathes of these wetlands, and much restoration work will be included in that.
The UK’s wetlands represent some of our nation’s most precious and sensitive habitats, providing a wonderful place for wintering and breeding habitats for wetland  birds. We have had a big list, and I am going to add to it. I saw many birds at Slimbridge last week: the black-tailed godwits; the curlews; the beautiful Bewick’s swans; the golden plovers, although I took issue with the wonderful guides who work there because the plovers looked more brown than gold, but the guides said that the sun had to be shining to see the gold; and the wonderful lapwings, which I love—we used to call them peewits at home, on the farm where I grew up.
Those birds are all there at the Slimbridge Wetland Centre, which must be commended for its work and the fantastic advice it gives visitors, regardless of their level of knowledge. I do not know if you are a keen birder, Mr Deputy Speaker, but even if you are not, you would be inspired because the guides point out the most amazing birds flying in and out, and flying in flocks. It is captivating, as my hon. Friends have laid out—a natural treasure.
Wetland habitats are incredibly diverse, from blanket bog to aquatic marginal areas, reedbeds to riverine habitats. They make a huge contribution and restoring them is critical to hitting our targets. We have launched 12 landscape-scale nature recovery projects over the past two years, half of which include wetland habitats within wilding mosaics. As has been said, quite a lot of that money has come to Somerset, including some significant grants for Shapwick Moor and sites in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke). Those grants will help to restore worked-out peatlands, which have dried out and are haemorrhaging carbon, by rewetting them, and also enable work with farmers to raise the water table to have wetter feet. Basically, we are getting back to the original state of the peatland—the wetland.
Those projects are supporting species recovery and building resilience against the impacts of climate change. In total, such projects cover something like 200,000 hectares, so a significant amount is already going to restoring those wonderful sites. We are about to announce the successful bids to our £25 million species survival fund grants, which we launched last year. A range of those projects will restore more habitats, including wetlands. Half of the projects funded by our £14.5 million species recovery programme capital grant scheme will support the recovery of wetland habitats and species such as the wonderful lapwing and black-tailed godwit, as well as mammals such as the water vole and white-faced darter. I know that has sparked the interest of Mr Deputy Speaker. As has been said, 10% of our species live in wetlands, so it is important that we look after them and help those that are in decline.
Our countryside stewardship schemes pay for actions to create and manage reedbed and fens. At the recent Oxford farming conference in January, as part of the new environmental land management schemes, we are updating these actions to better reflect the costs and income forgone for all farm types to create and maintain those important habitats. That has resulted in increased payment rates. For example, the previous rate of £35 a hectare for management of a fen has rocketed to £920 a hectare, which has been extremely well received. In addition, we are making these offers less prescriptive and more flexible about how they achieve the intended outcomes. That will help to incentivise the creation of new wetlands, contributing to our outcomes for biodiversity, water quality and net zero.
Beyond their crucial role as a home for our wildlife, we recognise the invaluable ecosystem services that wetlands provide, including water quality and management, carbon sequestration and public wellbeing. All of those have been ably referred to during the debate.

Siobhan Baillie: There is even more going on than I had understood. Returning to my point about a UK strategy, over 50 other countries have a strategy for wetlands. As I said, I will take a manifesto commitment, but will the Government be willing to look at what those other countries have done? A lot of the work has already been done, so could we make a commitment to ensure that we bring together all that focus down the line? That would make a lot of people very happy.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. We work widely on the international stage. Indeed, some of our Blue Planet fund and our Darwin fund go to working on wetland areas internationally, particularly restoring mangroves and work on climate change. We are already doing a great deal, but we can always learn from other countries. It should be a reciprocal learning process, and we will continue to work like that.
Through our plan for water, which was launched last year to tackle pollution, water pollution, storm overflows, agricultural pollution, plastics pollution, road run-off, chemicals and pesticides, work is going on to create wetlands to help solve those problems. Work is also under way in a number of catchments on wastewater treatment works to take out the phosphates, which are affecting some of the wetlands. Therefore, we are taking out the nutrients, but we are enabling the creation of nature-based solutions, including wetlands, to help clean the water as well, and that was also well referred to.
Wetlands can also play an important role in reducing flood risk through natural management. I am talking about the creation of wetlands to reduce and slow the flow of water. Back in September 2023, the Environment Agency and DEFRA announced £25 million of funding for improving flood resilience through these nature-based solutions.
I just want to touch on sustainable drainage systems, which, oddly, are a subject very dear to my heart— I have banged on about them since I was on the Back Benches. We are making big progress on the SuDS, as my hon. Friend will know, working with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Getting SuDS into all our developments can make such a big difference. Basically, SuDS are like mini wetlands within our urban habitats that can take the water and the run-off. They have myriad advantages in slowing the flow and reducing flooding, which is so nature diverse. I had a wonderful visit this week to the Bentley housing development in Finsbury Park, not very far away. All around the tower blocks were these SuDS, but they just looked like beautiful wetlands, which in fact is what they are. Many companies are already using them, and we are moving as a Government to get to that stage where SuDS have to be an integral part of our developments.
Wetlands can play an important role in addressing both the causes and the effect of climate change. That is why DEFRA is funding £300,000-worth of projects this financial year, to measure and verify the carbon storage potential of saltmarsh habitats, which, again, was raised by my hon. Friend. That will allow private investment  to be leveraged through the saltmarsh carbon code. Basically, that means that a standard will be verified for carbon credits and for saltmarsh, which will then trigger a market and private finance can then be leveraged, much as we do with the peatland code. That is on the way, and I believe that is also one of my hon. Friend’s asks.
The Nature for Climate Fund is aiming to deliver the restoration of approximately 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025. That is an area the size of Staffordshire. Somerset and many other areas are getting some of that money. This represents a tripling of historical average annual restoration funds for these areas. A great deal of that funding is going to the great north bog, a huge area that is currently being restored.
The England peat action plan sets out a strategic framework to improve management and protection of upland and lowland peatlands. We must not forget that all of those areas are basically wetlands. They are only effective wetlands when they are in a healthy state—basically wet—which is why we have to do this restoration work.
In the net zero strategy, we have committed to the aim of restoring approximately 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050. That is building on that 35,000 hectares, which is well under way. And the £80 million green recovery challenge fund has also been a cornerstone in our efforts and has contributed to funding a range of nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation, including riverine, coastal, floodplain and grazing and marsh habitats. That fund, as many in this Chamber will know, was set up during covid to help with lots of the effects and to get people out into nature and the countryside, but also to create skills and jobs, and it is extremely successful.
We also recognise, as has been mentioned, the huge importance of improving access to both our green space and our blue space—blue space obviously being nature areas or space where there is water. Just what that means to us has been very eloquently outlined—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and others touched on this. That point was very well made, and it is why this Government are investing a great deal in access to nature, which includes both blue  and green space. Through our projects and committing in our environmental improvement plan to a world where everyone should not be further than a 15-minute walk from nature, including wetlands, we are embedding all this into what we do. Today is a great day because we are one year on from the start of our environmental improvement plan and we are celebrating all the great things that we rolled out over this year for the environment, although with more to do, because we have a framework, we have a plan and we have the targets.
This is not only about Government money; we are driving to attract money from the private sector into all this investment in nature and nature recovery. That is a latent and expanding market and there is significant opportunity for wetlands in that space. We have already stimulated investment in wetland protection and through creating programmes such as our natural environment investment readiness fund, whose third round was launched in December. That offers grants of up to £100,000 to help farmers start some of these projects—re-wetting, re-establishing wetlands, and finding out what crops they can grow in these re-wetted wetlands, and what viable markets they might be able to tap into.
I want to thank everybody who contributed to this debate—there is genuine and huge interest in wetlands in Parliament in every party. I recognise the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has done; she is a tremendous advocate, and I have listened closely to the points she has made. I think she admitted that we are doing a great deal more than she realised; that is because we recognise the importance of our wetlands. It is World Wetlands Day on Friday, and I hope everyone will be celebrating. People can watch my Instagram, with all those wonderful pictures from Slimbridge. I thank her very much again for her contribution on wetlands.

Nigel Evans: What a lovely and fascinating debate to end the day on. Thank you and congratulations.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.